HC Deb 02 April 1963 vol 675 cc314-47

Amendment made: In page 109, line 39, after "be", insert: at the same or any subsequent meeting of the".—[Mr. Corfield.]

6.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph

I beg to move, in page 109, line 44, to leave out "a treasurer and a surveyor" and to insert "and a treasurer".

This seems to be a very small and simple Amendment. In effect, it leaves out "a surveyor" from the number of chief officers to be appointed by the Greater London Council. In fact, it is an epoch-making Amendment and I shall explain to the House why the Government have put it forward.

The Greater London Council will be one of the major local authorities in the world, if not the major authority, and it is scarcely consistent with the status of such an authority for the Government to write into the Bill the chief officers which it will choose to appoint. At the moment, the chief officers to be appointed by the Council arising from the Bill are a clerk, a treasurer, a surveyor, a director of traffic, and a number of other officers to be appointed because of other legislation—a chief education officer, a chief fire officer, and, I think, one other.

Some of these chief officers must be appointed because of other legislation and long tradition and because of functions imposed upon such officers by Parliament. For instance, it would not be practicable not to include the obligation on the Council to appoint a clerk and a treasurer. If the obligation were not in the Bill, I am perfectly certain that the Council would appoint a clerk and a treasurer. Nevertheless, there are statutory obligations which compel us to include such references in the Bill. But I am sure that the right thing for us to do wherever possible is to leave the Council, when it has weighed up the functions which Parliament will have laid upon it, to decide how it proposes to discharge those functions and, during that decision, to decide what chief officers it will need.

We have to recognise the slightly melancholy fact, melancholy because it somewhat reflects on human judgment, that if a chief officer is nominated in a Bill he is sometimes apt to be regarded as a more important chief officer than a chief officer who is appointed by an authority on its own initiative. I cannot defend that or even maintain that it is a general prejudice, but I am told that it is a likely tendency that a chief officer who is appointed because of a statutory obligation is regarded as more important and, what is more serious, as having, therefore, more important functions than the chief officer appointed on the initiative of the authority concerned.

Desiring to leave the Greater London Council as unfettered as possible in its decisions about its chief officers, the Government are reviewing the present requirements in the Bill. The Amendment goes only a certain way. It omits "a surveyor" and leaves, of the normal statutory officers, only the clerk and the treasurer. Perhaps I might be allowed to draw conclusions from what I have said so far in reference to another subject which comes within the ambit of the Amendment; for I am here removing a precedent which has been quoted against the Government when some hon. Members and many people outside the House have urged the Government to require the Greater London Council to appoint another series of chief officers as well.

I am referring to the very strong feeling in the architects' profession that there should be a chief architect and a chief planner as chief officers of the Council or, as some feel, a senior chief officer embodying the obligations of both the chief architect and the chief planner. I wish to state categorically that I expect that the Council will fill the posts of architect and planner, or, if it chooses, to appoint as an architect-planner a chief officer of the most senior status. I would be amazed, astounded and appalled if it did not do so, but I do not think that it is necessary for Parliament to impose such an obvious duty. It is repugnant to the dignity and status of the Council and to the whole concept of those responsibilities which we are giving to the Council as major powers and functions embodied in the Bill.

So long as the Government impose an obligation to appoint a surveyor, for instance, we are being inconsistent if we then refuse to force the Council to appoint a chief architect and chief planner, or chief architect-planner. It is as the first fruit of further consideration of this whole subject that the Government are putting forward the Amendment, and I hope that the House will understand that that is the purpose.

In case there is any misunderstanding, I should also say that the Government intend no possible disrespect to the engineering profession or to engineers who fill the rôle of chief surveyor to great authorities such as the G.L.C. will be. It is not because of the importance of the function that we are including or excluding nomination of chief officers in the Bill. What we are doing is trying to leave the Council as free as possible so far as is consistent with the Government's other major purposes.

I hope that the House will not misunderstand the Amendment. It is the fruit of the first reconsideration of a subject which has been pressed upon us partly in Committee and particularly from the profession outside, and I hope that the House will find it acceptable.

Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge)

Will my right hon. Friend say a word about how the salaries of these functionaries are to be fixed?

Sir K. Joseph

Anyone reading rapidly through the Bill would think that a chief officer was a chief officer and received the salary of a chief officer and that all chief officers were the same. However, there are grades of chief officer and salary scales are negotiated between the associations and local authority associations or authorities concerned.

It is no indication as to the status and power of an officer that he is appointed a chief officer, because, in relation to other chief officers, he might be lower paid, although still having chief officer status. Therefore, the salary must depend on the particular chief officer and upon the negotiated scales.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

Why are we knocking out "a surveyor"? The people my right hon. Friend has mentioned—clerk, treasurer, and surveyor—are not single individuals employed by the Greater London Council, but are the heads of their departments.

The treasurer has his treasury staff below him, and the clerk of the council will also have a considerable staff. The same comment applies to the surveyor, because the surveyor to the Greater London Council will be a most important person. He will be responsible for the enforcement of the London Building Acts and other important matters with which a person in this vital job has to deal.

Are we to have a department without a head? Is it to be all tail? if the person is to exist as head of the department, why not put him in the Bill? I do not understand this idea that because somebody is mentioned in the Bill he automatically has a higher social and financial status than somebody who is not mentioned in the Bill but who is appointed all the same. It just does not make sense.

Paragraph 12 says that the Council is to appoint from among fit persons a clerk, a treasurer, and a surveyor. Why not say that they must be qualified persons? That is something we all understand. This phrase "fit person" is amost unknown to Acts of Parliament. Is he to be medically fit, or is he to be somebody who, without qualifications, has done the job before? If the clerk, or the treasurer, or the surveyor, is a person who has the necessary qualifications for the job, the interests of the Greater London Council will be protected. I raise these points for the purpose of elucidation and clarification, and I should like to have them explained before we finally pass this Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph

The whole basis of the Bill is to impose functions, duties, and powers on local authorities, including the Greater London Council, and to leave them free to a large extent to work out their own methods of handling them. Consequently, they will decide on their own chief officers and their own grouping of departments, and that is why my hon. and learned Friend does not find the word "departments" mentioned in this part of the Bill.

I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend about "fit persons". I am advised that this is the traditional phrase which is used when these posts are discussed in statutes, and it normally leads to the conclusion that the person to be appointed shall be a qualified prac- titioner of the particular skill. While this may be easy in an engineering job, it is not always so easy in a planning job where men, and presumably women, also, of many skills are found in all ranks of the planning profession. When it comes to an architect, it is unimaginable that a chief architect could be a fit person unless he was a qualified professional architect.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

Surely those four words are unnecessary? The Council would not appoint from among unfit persons.

Sir K. Joseph

That may well be so, but I suggest to the House that it is wise to follow the accepted wording. That is what it means, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Hugh Linstead:

In page 110, line 1, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert: (2) As from 1st April 1965 and until such time as other terms and conditions of service are settled by agreement or award through the appropriate negotiating machinery and come into force, the terms and conditions of service applicable immediately before 1st April 1965 to persons transferred between local authorities shall continue to apply to such parsons, or terms and conditions not less favourable.

Mr. Speaker

Sir Hugh Linstead.

Sir H. Linstead rose—

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

On a point of order. I respectfully submit that the wording of the Amendment puts it out of order, for two reasons. First, the Amendment as it stands is meaningless. The final phrase of the Amendment refers to terms and conditions of service applicable immediately before 1st April 1965 to persons transferred between local authorities shall continue to apply to such persons"— that is all right so far, but it continues— or terms and conditions not less favourable. There is no verb attached to those terms and conditions which are not less favourable, unless it be supposed that the verb in question is that contained in the preceding phrase "continue to apply".

6.45 p.m.

If the terms and conditions are not less favourable, they must be more favourable than those which obtained previously, and therefore they cannot continue to apply because they are new terms and represent a change on the situation which obtained before 1st April, 1965. Therefore, if one supposes that the verb "continue to apply" is the one associated with the phrase terms and conditions which are not less favourable", then the Amendment as it stands is meaningless; but perhaps this is not the most important point.

I submit that the reference to local authorities in the final phrase would put the Amendment out of order in any case, because Clause 2 (3) says: The provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and general functions of the Greater London Council", and if we look at the heading of Schedule 2 we see that it is concerned with the Constitution and General Functions of Greater London Council". The phrase "local authorities" indicates that persons transferred from any council, no matter where it was in the United Kingdom, would be covered by the provisions of this Clause. Even if the words "local authorities" were qualified by the addition of the words, "in and around the Greater London Area", the Amendment would still be out of order, because the Schedule and the reference to it in Clause 2 (3) is confined to the Greater London Council. If one looks through Schedule 2 one finds continued references to the Council, and none to the boroughs which will be formed under the Bill. I therefore respectfully submit that the Amendment is out of order.

Mr. M. Stewart

Further to that point of order. There are two other considerations which bear on this point. The paragraph of the Schedule in which it is proposed to insert these words is headed: Officers and records, etc., of the Council", and the whole Schedule refers to Greater London and to Greater London alone. It seems doubtful, therefore, whether anything contained in this Schedule could in any way affect the position of somebody who was not, and never became, an officer or employee of the Greater London Council.

The Amendment refers to persons transferred between local authorities, and is worded in such a way as to suggest that this Schedule would cover somebody transferred from, say, the London County Council to the Harrow Borough Council. The point we ask you to consider is whether the conditions of such a transfer could be governed by a Schedule which relates to the Greater London Council when the kind of person I have been describing is not, and never becomes, an officer or employee of the Greater London Council?

Secondly, the Amendment contains the phrase: terms and conditions of service". There has been some doubt in the House about whether that phrase includes pay. I respectfully submit that if it is held to include pay the Amendment would not be in order on Report, and should have been moved on Recommittal of the Bill, as I was advised when I tried to move a similar Amendment. If we are told that terms and conditions do not include pay, and if that is your Ruling, that will be helpful to the House, as we should then know what we are discussing, because one of the points at issue is what benefits, if any, this Amendment confers. It is, therefore, important to know whether it includes pay. My submission is that if it does not the Amendment would not be in order at this stage.

Mr. John Harvey (Walthamstow, East)

I have conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) my own concern as to the points that have been raised. If the objections which have been levelled against the Amendment are justified, and it is out of order, I would point out that no such objections appear to attach to the Amendment in page 110, line 2, leave out from "are" to end of line 3 and insert: settled by agreement or award in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson) and myself, which is coupled with the Amendment that we are now discussing.

Sir H. Linstead

Three points have been raised. The first seems to be purely a point of interpretation, and not one that goes to the question of the Amendment being in order or out of order, namely, whether the phrase terms and conditions of service includes salaries. That seems to be a matter which can be discussed, and possibly interpreted by the courts, but it cannot be a matter that goes to the question whether or not the Amendment is in order.

Mr. M. Stewart

If it were held or believed that that phrase included salary, since the Amendment would be imposing a charge on rates and therefore, indirectly, on national funds, it would not be in order on Report. The question is relevant.

Sir H. Linstead

In the light of the discussion that we had yesterday, my understanding is that the phrase terms and conditions of service does not include salary, but that is neither here nor there in relation to the question whether the Amendment is in order. That is a matter of interpretation.

The second point relates to the words parsons transferred between local authorities It may be a clumsy phrase, but it is not a meaningless one, because three can be transferred to the service of the Greater London Council officers who have previously served in the Kent, Surrey or Middlesex County Councils. All those are compendiously described in the Amendment as persons transferred between local authorities. I do not say that it is the most apt phrase, but that is the group of people that is to be understood as being covered by the phrase.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

Why should it not refer to a person transferred from Birmingham to Sheffield?

Sir H. Linstead

It cannot be that, for the reason referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), namely, that the title of the Schedule, which determines the contents, is: Constitution and general functions of Greater London Council. What I am referring to is the group of officers who may be transferred from any one local authority into the service of the Greater London Council.

The third point relates to the phrase or terms and conditions not less favourable continuing to apply. I at once admit the grammatical point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington, but the intention is quite clear, and I submit that it should not invalidate a discussion of the Amendment.

Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich)

Since the Amendment involves a point of considerable importance, which is not merely concerned with the salaries to be paid to the staff—and it is inconceivable that in a change-over of this type a "no detriment" clause would not be included, either between local authorities or at some place within the Bill—and also since this part of the Bill raises in the minds of many people a great deal of doubt about the method of negotiating salaries for staffs within the Greater London Council, I submit that it would be very unfortunate if we were not allowed to discuss it, and were thus prevented from airing our views on this part of the Bill. Most of the arguments so far put forward relate to interpretation. I respectfully ask you to rule that the Amendment is in order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) put his finger on the point when he stated that the term persons transferred between local authorities is not a meaningless phrase. Clearly it is not; it can be interpreted in many ways. But one interpretation can surely be that it would cover a person moving from the Greater London Council to a local authority within London. If it is open to that interpretation it is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the Schedule, Which is directly concerned with the Greater London Council. I therefore support the submission of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that the Amendment is out of order.

Dr. Alan Glyn

As has already been said, this point affects many people. Even if it is not grammatically correct, would it not be in order for the House to discuss the Amendment?

Mr. Speaker

The Amendment is either in order or out of order; the number of persons affected by it makes no difference On the other hand, I would not wish to be a censor of grammar. Supposing that the words persons transferred between local authorities are capable, on one view, of bearing the meaning which the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) attaches to them I am not, on the presence of those words, prepared to rule the Amendment out of order. What would be quite fatal would be the knowledge that the phrase "terms and conditions" included pay—but the hon. Member declares that it does not. Without much more consideration of the matter I am not prepared to rule upon the legal implications.

Sir K. Joseph

Perhaps I may be able to help you in this respect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

If the right hon. Gentleman will do so I shall be obliged.

Sir K. Joseph

I am in some difficulty here, because I hoped that we could discuss the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has pointed out, there are many doubts and uncertainties about this part of the Bill, and I had hope to clear them up. But since you put the matter as you did when finishing your remarks, I am forced to say that the legal advice that I have been given—although this is a matter entirely for you, Mr. Speaker—is that the words "terms and conditions", if not otherwise limited, include pay. Yesterday we were discussing different phrases, but, as I am advised, this phrase includes pay. I intervened only because, having been given that advice, I thought it would be wrong not to give you that opinion.

Sir K. Thompson

In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I draw you attention to the wording that was accepted in Committee, on which a discussion was allowed—

Mr. Speaker

I am in no way concerned with what was accepted or not accepted in Committee. I have to deal with the matter myself. In the circumstances, I must accept what the Minister tells me, that on the advice available to him the words "terms and conditions" include pay, and I declare, as a consequence that the Amendment, as it stands, must be out of order.

On the other hand, I have been made aware of the fact that other hon. Members are very interested in the topic, and that the House shows signs of wishing to discuss it. In the circumstances I wonder whether the hon. Member for Putney would be prepared to move, by way of a manuscript Amendment, to leave out sub-paragraph (2). If he were to do that I would be prepared to accept it in order to enable a discussion to take place.

Sir H. Linstead

If the House will allow me a moment in order to reduce what you have said to writing, Mr. Speaker, I shall be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Driberg

Would you permit the Minister, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House what would be the effect of this manuscript Amendment on the Bill, were it accepted?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentle. man could do that in due course when we reach that point in the discussion. The Amendment may be accepted, or it may not. I do not know.

Sir H. Linstead

I beg to move, in page 110, line 1, to leave out subparagraph (2).

I am moving what I believe to be the least controversial part of my original Amendment, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the help which has made it possible for me to do so.

I am seeking, with some temerity, to correct what I think we must all recognise was a mistake which was made during the Committee stage discussions. It was a mistake made because of the desire of the majority of the Committee to give assurances to those who might be affected in their employment—by the upheaval caused by this Bill—that their terms and conditions of service—however interpreted —would not be affected, at any rate short-term. In a desire to do that, against the advice of my right hon. Friend and by a majority, the Committee inserted the subparagraph (2) which I am now suggesting to the House should be looked at again.

The reasons I think that the subparagraph must come out are, essentially, four. First, I submit that it is in the wrong place in the Bill. This part of the Second Schedule deals with a very limited group of officers of the council: whereas the sub-paragraph which was put in during the Committee stage proceedings deals with all the officers serving under the London County Council, all its servants. The sub-paragraph does not properly belong in the part of the Schedule referring only to chief officers.

Secondly, I think that we would all agree that it is not sufficient to say, as the sub-paragraph says, that the terms and conditions of service should remain until others are agreed by the Council and representatives of the persons employed by the Council … It should not only be agreement, it should also be arbitration and award, and we make no provision for arbitration in the wording which was inserted during the Committee stage.

There is also a reference in line 7 to the London County Council, and the effect of putting in that reference is that employees of the Greater London Council transferred to its service from Middlesex and Kent and Surrey County Councils will immediately go on to the London County Council scales. They will remain on those scales only until new scales and conditions of service, and so on, are negotiated by new agreements for arbitration, which will mean, for a period of months or possibly a year or two years, that there will be not only the confusion of recalculating the whole of their salaries, but all sorts of nice questions involving which course is of the greater benefit to them—to stop as they were or to come under the London County Council scales.

There will be the other problem, that a number of those transferred from Kent, Surrey or Middlesex in this way will thereby get increased salaries, those salaries being justified in the case of the London County Council because they include an element which we may, roughly, call the "London weight". We shall award that by these words—

Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Southall)

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware the London weight applies to the whole of the metropolitan area and not only to the London County Council?

Sir H. Linstead

Yes. But I have little doubt that there will be some officers who will be taken over from Kent and Surrey, if not from Middlesex, who, at the moment, are paid on a lower scale of salary because they are living in the country. If we leave in the words, they will benefit by the bonus, the higher salaries, paid by the London County Council. If that happens, we shall have further demands from those people living in the central area for a recognition of the higher cost of living in central London compared with the periphery, which will be extremely difficult to resist.

Fourthly, and possibly the item in the sub-paragraph which creates the most difficulty, there is the fact that it is to apply to all persons serving under the London County Council. That is not only those persons for whom salaries and conditions of service are negotiated through the London County Council Staff Association. It is to apply also to those whose salaries are negotiated by national agreement, and the case of the teachers is the most obvious example. Therefore, we shall have the probable confusion that if the wording stays as it is—

Mr. Pargiter

The teachers will not be transferred to the Greater London Council, but to the education authority.

Sir H. Linstead

That is a very nice point. I think that it could be argued that teachers will be transferred to the Greater London Council, although, in fact, they will serve as servants of the education authority of the Greater London Council; because it says that these people are to retain their existing service until new conditions agreed by the Council and representatives of persons employed by the Council come into force.

This, therefore, is giving authority to the local authority associations, particularly to the London County Council association, to negotiate all the new terms and conditions of service for all the transferred officers. I think this a sufficient group of reasons for indicating why during the Committee stage discussions we were unwise to insert this subparagraph (2) in its present form.

I still feel that there is a sense of uncertainty and doubt in the minds of these transferred 'officers. It may be that the new words which we put into Clause 82 yesterday will go some way to meet those doubts and that uncertainty. If so, we need do no more than take out this sub-paragraph. But if those who speak for the staff can indicate to us that there is still this feeling of doubt and uncertainty, we should be wise to ask the Government to put in some words, perhaps less controversial than the ones which I propose, to take the place of the words we should be taking out. But it is clear to me that it would be wise to take out sub-paragraph (2) in its present form.

Mr. M. Stewart

I should like to take up immediately the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) about teachers, because I think that it illustrates very well what is in issue. The sub-paragraph now in the Bill, which he proposes to delete, would have the following effect in regard to teachers. If we assume that they are legally regarded as being in the service of the Greater London Council—if they are not, of course, his reference is out of place, but making that assumption—the position will be that from April, 1965 until such other terms may be agreed the conditions of service, grading, salaries, wages, emoluments, and so on, which were applicable to teachers serving under London County Council should be applicable to teachters serving under the Greater London Council.

What would be wrong with that? The conditions and all the rest applicable to teachers serving under London County Council are those reached through the Burnham agreement. That is what the sub-paragraph would mean in a case like that. It is entirely proper that we should provide that that should continue until Burnham, or some other properly constituted machinery, reaches some other agreement on salary.

Sir H. Linstead

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the other point which I think is the real basis of the trouble? They remain until other terms are agreed by representatives of people employed by the Council. That, I think, does not necessarily refer to Burnham at all, but refers to some other organisation which would then have to be brought into the picture to negotiate the salaries for the teachers of the Greater London Council.

Mr. Stewart

No. Because no other organisation could be regarded as representative of the teachers than the organisation of the Burnham Committee. The phrase is quite plain: representatives of persons employed by the Council". No one could say that the L.C.C. Staff Association represents the teachers. I do not suppose that a teacher belongs to it. Why should they? That phrase could not apply to them.

Similarly, take the case of a fireman employed by London County Council. The terms applying to persons now serving under the L.C.C. are terms which are reached as part of a national agreement. That would continue to apply until a fresh agreement was reached. The great majority of persons employed by L.C.C. are not members of that rather unusual body, the L.C.C. Staff Association. The great majority of L.C.C. employees belong to unions and professional organisations of all kinds and have the ordinary national negotiating machinery. The "terms and conditions" and the rest applicable to persons serving under the L.C.C. means in relation to all those people the terms and the rest settled through national negotiating machinery.

Mr. Lubbock

I think that the difference between the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) could be simply resolved. It is possible that the hon. Member for Putney is looking at the word "by" as if it were "between", as if it were a matter agreed between the persons employed and the council. It is quite obvious that where agreements are reached on a national basis they must be agreed by the representatives of the employers and the employees.

Mr. Stewart

Certainly, I should have thought that when local authority representatives meet on the Burnham Committee one could say that the matter was agreed by all the parties on that panel. The same applies to the great majority of L.C.C. employees. All that the sub-paragraph says is that if before 1st April, 1965, the G.L.C.—which will have been elected a year before and might have made progress in negotiations—has not agreed something else, it should start off its employees with the terms and conditions which now prevail under the L.C.C. Notice that the phrase, "prevail under the L.C.C." means in the case of the great majority of L.C.C. employees terms nationally agreed, applicable not only in London but elsewhere.

In the case of certain occupations there may be a London weighting, but that will be a geographical term possibly with different meanings in different agreements and they will all be parts of national agreements. There is a metropolitan weighting in the teachers' agreement, but I believe the exact area is not coterminous with either the L.C.C. or the G.L.C. area. We need not bring that into the argument.

When we say, "terms now applying to the L.C.C.," for most people that is not showing, as it were, any special deference to L.C.C. terms, because the great majority of L.C.C. employers have terms nationally negotiated and settled. There is, however, one special category, popularly known as "A.P.T.", the administrative, professional and technical employees of the L.C.C. who, I think, constitute about one-fifth of the total L.C.C. employees. The important point about them is that they have very different methods of grading. The salary structure and career arrangements are different in the London County Council employment of those people from what it is anywhere else.

7.15 p.m.

There was a good reason for that. I argued this in Committee, and it certainly commanded the assent of the majority of the Committee, including hon. Members on both sides. What is to happen to most of these people when they pass into the employment of the Greater London Council? The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that I am far wrong in saying that of these administrative, professional and technical people whom we are speaking about four-fifths of those now in the employment of the L.C.C. will pass into the service of the Greater London Council.

In addition, the Greater London Council will employ a comparatively small number, perhaps a few hundred, of people of this kind from the County of Middlesex and very few, if any, from the other counties. Overwhelmingly, the actual body of people in this group whom the G.L.C. will employ will be former L.C.C. employees.

It is surely not unreasonable to say that, at least to start with, the grading for those people should be that with which they are familiar. That is all that is required here. It may be argued that there are some L.C.C. employees who will not be taken into the service of the G.L.C. but will go to the boroughs. There they will meet a strange grading, a grading unfamiliar to them. In the borough to which they go the great majority of employees similar to them will be used to the other system of grading. Such a man coming from the L.C.C. and finding himself in a small minority in a new borough could not reasonably ask that the whole grading and salary structure of the new borough should be altered to that with which he is familiar. It must be accepted that those who go in those circumstances must be integrated into the borough grading.

It is fair, however, to say that those who stay in the one authority where ex-L.C.C. employees are in the great majority should have the grading with which they are familiar. That seems to me now, as it seemed in Committee, a perfectly reasonable proposition. It is possible that this Amendment might never need to come into force if before April, 1965, agreement is reached between the G.L.C. and its employees. It is a purely precautionary Amendment.

Now that we have had the discussion and the points of order I should have thought the case for not striking this sub-paragraph out of the Bill is overwhelming. It is quite clear that if we strike it out now every safeguard for these employees will be removed and we have no idea what may be put in its place. It safeguards, among other things, the pay of the employee. The Amendment which the hon. Member for Putney hoped to move either would not safeguard their pay or, if it did so, would be out of order. There is no escape from that dilemma.

If we were to vote for the present Amendment, which is simply to strike out the sub-paragraph, we should be taking away from the persons employed by the L.C.C., particularly the administrative, professional and technical grades, a guarantee about their pay and many other important matters which is now firmly in the Bill and we should be invited to take it out and put nothing in its place. I submit, to the House that that is not good enough.

The only other point that arises is the question of the negotiating machinery. As the Bill stands, it speaks of … agreed by the Council and representatives of persons employed … The one point where, I think, the hon. Gentleman had something was: what about the possibility of agreement not being reached and an award having to be made? I am advised, if someone speaking from this Box may be allowed to use that phrase, that the terms now in the Bill would be interpreted to mean something settled by an award. If that advice is wrong, then the only Amendment necessary, I think, would be to make no other alteration than to insert the words "or settled by award" after the word "Council", at the end of line 3. I think that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment proposes to do a little more than that. He is proposing to take out some words and that, I think, is not quite so satisfactory. I do not think that there would be any objection to what I propose.

It is quite clear that the Bill does not dictate who is to do the negotiating. There is to be the Council on one side, which, obviously, must be there, and representatives of the Council on the other. One of the first jobs of the G.L.C. would be to satisfy itself who could properly speak to it as representatives of the employees. For some, there would be one association, and for some, another.

The terms used in the Amendment which was out of order were "the appropriate negotiating machinery." I am not quite sure what the court would make of that, but I would have thought that it substantially comes down to the same thing—persons whom the employees themselves accredit and trust as their representatives and whom the employer is prepared to accept as such. That is exactly what the words now in the Bill mean. I say this to allay anxiety in some quarters. I do not think that this in any way prejudges who the parties to the negotiations, or the unions or associations concerned should be. That is something which, if we can possibly avoid it, we ought not to settle in an Act of Parliament. It ought to be agreed between the employers and the employed and that, I believe, in practice would be done and, under the Bill as it now stands, could be done.

I cannot feel, therefore, that there is any case for taking out this sub-paragraph. The hon. Member suggested that there might be an officer, say, from Kent, in these grades, who would be especially affected and that because of the L.C.C. terms of employment he might get a higher salary than before. That seems to me to be possible. I cannot regard it as all that regrettable. There would be very few of them. The alternative is to say that the great majority of the L.C.C. staff shall be left without any certain guarantee of what their position will be.

I think that that covers all the points that the hon. Member made. I do not think that he has made out a convincing case for removing this Amendment which the Committee decided to put in.

Mr. J. Harvey

If there were in fact the need for a sub-paragraph such as sub-paragraph (2) which we are now discussing, I would tend to share the doubt of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) whether the sub-paragraph is at the moment in the right place. Leaving this aside altogether, it is felt, so I understand, by a good many people that the sub-paragraph carried in Committee against the advice of my right hon. Friend contains a number of subsidiary defects and two major ones.

The two major ones have already been touched on. They are that there is no provision as to the determination of the interim arrangements which the sub-paragraph suggests and also that there is no written-in provision for arbitration in the event of failure on both sides to agree. It has been represented to me by the National Association of Local Government Officers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I feel it right that it should be represented to this House—I take it that it is not the view of hon. Members opposite that this is a body whose views do not deserve consideration—

Mr. Marsh

Would the hon. Member agree that the views expressed by the National Association of Local Government Officers happen to be those shared by every other staff side association on the National Joint Industrial Council, plus all the employers' sides?

Mr. Harvey

I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention helpful.

Mr. Reynolds

Does the hon. Member think that this Chamber is the place in which disputes between legitimate trade unions and who should represent whom should be argued?

Mr. Harvey

I do not think that this Chamber should be used for an argument of that sort, but if it is possible that we might be writing into the Bill words that might make it more difficult rather than less difficult to resolve problems in future, I think that the House should be aware of what it is doing. It is on that point that I propose to speak.

There is considerable concern, so I understand, on both sides of the National Joint Council for administrative, professional, technical and clerical staffs of local authority associations that the implication of this sub-paragraph is that separate Whitley machinery would require to be established for employees of the Greater London Council. The sub-paragraph would appear to prevent the Greater London Council from participating in the existing national negotiating machinery, even if it wished to do so. That is the point that I am anxious, and I believe that a good many hon. Members probably on both sides of the House will be anxious, to try to avoid if it is at all possible.

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson) and myself was taken, as far as its wording goes, from the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959. I gather that, although my own Amendment is coupled for practical purposes with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, it is on his Amendment that the House would be asked to divide if there is a Division. Therefore, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) at the complete deletion from the Bill of any sort of reference to the type of thing which he and I and all hon. Members are anxious to safeguard. I should like to refer to some of the things that were said in Standing Committee on 21st March. The hon. Member for Fulham said quite fairly at the outset of his comments … it might be objected that this is an Amendment which is drafted too narrowly with the views of L.C.C. staff in mind. Certainly it might be objected that this is an Amendment which would limit the powers of the local authority and its employees to negotiate terms of settlement between each other in the ordinary way. 7.30 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman went on to make this claim: The existing staff"— that is, the existing staff of the L.C.C.— has grading arrangements quite different from those of other local authorities. We are now making a change in local government which will transfer by far the bulk of that staff into the service of a new authority. In the light of that, it is not at all unreasonable that one should ask that the special features now prevailing for L.C.C. staff should, at least to begin with, prevail in the Greater London Council. The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with his own second objection by saying this: The second objection which might be raised is that the Amendment overrides the power and duty of a local authority and its employees to negotiate with each other terms and conditions of service. I emphasise that there is nothing in the Amendment that takes away from the local authority or from its staff that right and duty to have proper negotiating arrangements of their own, because the Amendment indicates that the special arrangements which it proposes are only to be until such time as other terms and conditions of service are agreed between the Council and representatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F. 21st March, 1963; c. 1006–8.] The worry which I gather many people have is that, if the thing is begun in this way, it will be very difficult to change its course subsequently. I emphasise again the point I have already made, that although the hon. Member for Fulham said in Committee that the arrangements would continue only until such time as other terms and conditions of service are agreed he did not make any provision for the length of time concerned, nor for the possibility that there would be no agreement.

Even though one can sympathise with much of what the hon. Member for Fulham said and was trying to do in pressing the Committee to accept his Amendment at that stage, it is not the best possible way in which to deal with the matter. I want briefly to refer also to what my right hon. Friend said on that same day. He said this: I can only say that we must preserve the freedom of the staff associations and the authorities to negotiate …". Does any hon. Gentleman dissent from that view? My right hon. Friend said this later: … there is to be a joint committee to act as a 'shadow' Greater London Council. That will mean that the 'shadow' Greater London committee will begin to consider this very important matter in the very early future, so that when the G.L.C. is elected it will have a basis on which, in its early days, it can open negotiations with staff associations, clear doubts an and settle the principles and practice in the whole subject. Towards the end of his comments, my right hon. Friend again emphasised in his remarks: … I really must ask the Committee, in the interests of the negotiating freedom of local authorities, not to accept the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 21st March, 1963; c. 1011–2.] I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) subsequently questioned the Minister as to whether anything that the shadow committee might suggest would be binding on the Greater London Council. The timetable in Committee did not make it possible for my right hon. Friend to give an answer on that point. I hope that he can give some sort of answer today, because it would be helpful to the House at this stage to know a little more about precisely what he has in mind. There is no doubt that many people are concerned about the present arrangements within the L.C.C. I am informed that there is close liaison between the London County Council and the employers' side of the National Joint Council and that the London County Council now applies to its staffs without any negotiation with those staffs—this is important—any general salary awards negotiated through the National Joint Council. I understand that the former negotiating machinery which existed between the L.C.C. and its staffs was discontinued by the County Council and that there now operates an Interim Panel which discusses matters of salaries and conditions of service but not questions of general salary awards.

All these matters are of concern to a number of those people who have not hitherto been employees of the L.C.C. but who will become employees of the Greater London Council. I feel that it is of the utmost importance that we in this House should ensure that the greatest possible negotiating freedom is written into the Bill when it leaves us. I agree that, if sub-paragraph (2) is lost altogether, a vacuum will be created and the end position may be worse than the first. If it is the fact that it is on this complete deletion that we shall have to divide, if Division there is, and not on my Amendment, which I feel might have resolved the difficulty much more simply, we shall at least have to ask from my right hon. Friend the clearest possible undertaking as to the sort of provision he will be prepared to see written into the Bill at some subsequent stage.

That is all I want to say, except to stress again that it is solely a concern for the freedom of negotiation that has motivated me and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton in tabling our Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph

I think that the House has acquitted itself nobly at a time of improvisation like this, and I must heed the very good advice from both sides to tread very warily when we are dealing with these issues of staff pay and staff negotiations. It is not for Parliament to enter into the scales or conditions of pay, nor the negotiating machinery, nor the choice of negotiating machinery. It is for the Minister speaking from this Box to make clear to the House, so far as he can, the implications of what it is proposed to do. That is what I am limiting myself to now.

There is quite a big issue of principle here. As we all know—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) has just underlined it—the L.C.C. Staff Association is not part of the national local government negotiating machinery. It is not for me or for the Government to make any other point than that. That is a fact. The established national negotiating machinery serves a very considerable purpose in giving the assurance to recruits to local government service that they can make a career and transfer from one place to another and still find conditions looked after that make a career practicable.

The sub-paragraph in the Schedule which was inserted in Committee against the advice of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary contains two implications which I think we should have clearly in front of us before we make a decision on the Amendment. The first implication is that the pay and conditions of the L.C.C. staff are appropriate for the G.L.C. when it takes over that staff, until new conditions are negotiated. That assumption is regardless of what the outcome of the negotiations may be. The second implication is that the negotiations to establish the new structure of pay and conditions between the G.L.C. and its staff shall not apparently be by way of the national negotiating machinery.

Mr. M. Stewart

How does the Minister get that second implication into the Bill?

Mr. Mellish

That it by-passes the national machinery?

Sir K. Joseph

I do not say that it does. I say apparently. It may possibly be said from the words until such time as other terms and conditions of service under the Council are agreed by the Council and representatives of persons employed by the Council … The Amendment in line 2, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East has just spoken, would clear that point. I am arguing that this is an implication from the sub-paragraph.

Mr. Reynolds

The Minister is reading an implication into this. He is interpreting it carefully, but one must consider what is done by every local authority. We have national negotiating machinery which works out scales. Representatives of local firms from all over the country take part in those discussions, but no local authority would pass on a penny in increased salary awards without first passing a resolution agreeing to accept the award. As the right hon. Gentleman can see, whether this is done through the national negotiating machinery or separately by councils, each authority must pass a resolution agreeing to the award in the end. For this reason I cannot see how the Minister can arrive at his conclusion.

Sir K. Joseph

I agree that it is not a cut and dried interpretation, but the strongest representations have been made to me, outside the House, by those concerned. They have a perfect right to make their views known and to say that that is an interpretation which could be put on it and which, therefore, would prejudice the free choice of the G.L.C. and the staff in how they go about negotiating pay and conditions.

Moreover, I must point out that, while paragraph (2) of Schedule 2 was drafted with an eye to the interests of the L.C.C. staff transferring to the Greater London Council, it could result in a number of difficulties and anomalies for other staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has given instances of some of these and while I do not propose to repeat them, or to add some of my own, I do not believe that any of the anomalies and difficulties he mentioned are insuperable.

I am sure that when the time comes for negotiations to take place between the G.L.C. and the staff—by whatever machinery; and it is for them to decide—such difficulties and anomalies will be ironed out. However, it must be pointed out that while the paragraph was aimed at protecting one set of employees, it may have implications and side effects on others.

Mr. Lubbock rose—

Sir K. Joseph

I must proceed. I do not wish to delay the House.

Mr. Lubbock

I merely want to know, further to what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, just who will be adversely affected?

Sir K. Joseph

It could affect the service of London adversely. If a member of Middlesex County Council's staff is offered the choice between transferring to the G.L.C. with pay and conditions inherited from the L.C.C. as compared with transferring to a London borough, which may have a different structure for pay and conditions, this choice may influence the person's decision and that, of course, may be to the damage of London as a whole.

I now come to the positive side. If the Amendment as drafted were accepted, and paragraph (2) were deleted, we must ask ourselves what the protective and other safeguards for the staff would be. We would be back to an Amendment which the House passed into the Bill yesterday; that is, in Clause 82, page 92, line 13, at the end to insert: (2A) The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April 1965 is transferred under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date. I would like hon. Members to note the contents of that Amendment. It states that where any person is transferred under the Act from one authority to another he would hold office by the same tenure, and, as hon. Members can see, on the same conditions as immediately before that date.

So, in the example I gave, the member of the Middlesex County Council staff would carry his own conditions and tenure with him to whichever other employment he went … while he is engaged in similar duties … and … immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration … Let us summarise the position. Under the Bill as it stands, if the Amendment is carried, there is complete protection for employees transferring and they can carry with them all their conditions except that of salary; and they only carry their salary when they move to equivalent jobs.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said that there would be a relatively small number of people who would not be transferred to their same jobs. After our discussion yesterday I undertook—it was a movement from my original position—to consider whether there might be a case for extending the "no detriment concession" for a limited period to those who do not transfer to an equivalent post. That is the position in which we would leave the Bill if we accepted the Amendment.

The protection under the Amendment we passed yesterday for the salaries of people transferring to equivalent posts would exist and there would he, for the remainder, who might suffer some detriment, an undertaking that the Government would consider a guarantee for a limited period regarding their salaries. Even if the undertaking were not fulfilled for those who moved to non-equivalent posts, there would be the compensation provisions of which a new edition is about to come out.

7.45 p.m.

I repeat the undertaking to look at the salaries of those transferred to nonequivalent posts. Subject to that, I hope that the House will agree that the sensible thing to do is to clear up any doubt about the negotiating position and to accept the Amendment which, by a combination of circumstances, is before us to delete this sub-paragraph. This would be for the general benefit of all concerned and, once again, I repeat my undertaking to look at the narrow salary point which was raised yesterday.

Mr. Mellish

If the Minister really felt as he says he feels about this, he should have tabled an Amendment to delete the whole of the paragraph. Let us get this straight. This argument has really only just arisen because we have had this emergency manuscript Amendment. Despite that, the Minister's speech made it sound as though he had thought about it all the time.

Is he not aware that he was defeated in Committee by a large majority because this is the way we consider this matter should be handled? We did not put down the Amendment with the intention of giving preference to the staff association. Had we had that in mind we would have tabled an Amendment and strongly supported it. We saw the whole matter as representing protection for those employed by the L.C.C. It would have safeguarded the terms and conditions of those employees and of those going into the Greater London Council.

If the paragraph is read as we want it read, it becomes clear that there would be no hindrance to free negotiation between the other associations. We wish only to improve the position and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, this is a holding operation for the time when the G.L.C. comes into being. Leaving aside what the G.L.C. will do and with whom it will negotiate, are we expected to rely on what the right hon. Gentleman says? We do not believe that that is a satisfactory way of going about this.

I freely admit that the original Amendment we put down was promoted by the staff association. I admit that. It seemed that N.A.L.G.O. was not awfully concerned about it; although it is interesting to see, at the end of the day, that it has asked an hon. Member opposite to put the point of view of its members.

Sir H. Linstead

I was not asked by N.A.L.G.O. to put that point of view.

Mr. Mellish

I was referring not to that hon. Member but to one of his hon. Friends. N.A.L.G.O. can ask anyone to put its point of view, and I can honestly say that I have not had any communication from N.A.L.G.O. When we are approached—quite rightly and properly—by a legitimate staff association which is concerned with this matter, there is every reason for us to want to help it, and that is exactly what we are doing. We saw nothing wrong in the position of trying to ensure free negotiations for those employed by the G.L.C.

Mr. Harvey

In fairness to N.A.L.G.O., it is important to make the point that that body did not want a situation in which one has the vacuum that now arises, but did want a loosening up of what it regarded as overtight phraseology.

Mr. Mellish

If that is the way N.A.L.G.O. feels we had better leave the paragraph in because, as we see it, and we have taken the best advice we can, there can be no interference with the normal and legitimate negotiations of any one body in the national machinery. All we ask for is a holding operation to safeguard salaries, terms and conditions, and we think that is an honourable objective for all hon. Members. That is why certain Conservative Members voted with us as they did.

Mr. Marsh

We are now faced with a choice of virtually no protection on salary at all except the point of comparable grades. They would lose the protection of existing salaries, because a person has held a position for several years—

Sir K. Joseph

Just to get it right—subject to compensation, and to the undertaking I have given.

Mr. Marsh

If one is left with that choice of a vacuum or the Bill, I support the Bill as amended. What worries me—and if there is ever the opportunity we might discuss it at another time—is that this is a new situation. Those in this one small group of one local authority's employees are the only people in the country who are outside the machinery that is acceptable to employers and employees, and no one wants to interfere with something that has been acceptable to both sides of an industry for years.

There is one way in which some of us feel that a problem might arise. At the moment, acceptance of conditions of service and rates of pay by an employing authority are not just a matter of agreement between that authority and its employees. At the moment, any employee aggrieved by a local authority not covered by national or local machinery can refer the dispute to the Industrial Court, where he can argue that those were the rates of pay and the conditions of service generally extant in that particular industry.

There seems a likelihood that new employees coming into the Greater London authority will find themselves for a period subject to the conditions they had before, but then, unless agreement can be reached between the staff side organisations and the employing authority, they will have no alternative but to move into the present situation in the London County Council, which is an ad hoc arrangement—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends must clear this up. They are talking of about 12,000 employees out of about 85,000 employed by the L.C.C., and provided those employees have a "no-detriment" clause they could not be worse off. But we are now left with a choice of nothing at all or this Amendment, so I feel that the House has no alternative but to support the Bill as amended, regretting that we are faced with a situation in which we have to discuss this important matter within a time limit of three or four minutes

Mr. Reynolds

It is perfectly clear what has happened. The Committee spent a lot of time in coming to a decision, with about five hon. Members opposite abstaining and about three voting with us in Opposition. We then have two Amendments on the Notice Paper tabled by hon. Members opposite, and the Minister presumably came here prepared to accept them, or one of them, or to ask the House to reject them. I believe that he intended to accept one of them.

Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.

Mr. Reynolds

But the Amendment that he had intended to accept has been ruled out of order, and so cannot be discussed. The Minister has previously spent about a fortnight considering his attitude—from the time when the Committee dealt with the matter until now—and after mature consideration, and after the Amendments have been on the Notice Paper for several days, he comes to the conclusion that we should accept an Amendment that has now been ruled out of order. So, in a debate of 25 or 45 minutes, he reverses all his consideration of the last fortnight and his decision to accept the Amendment—

Sir K. Joseph

The hon. Member is perfectly within his rights to draw this conclusion, because I nodded when he spoke about my accepting the Amendment. My intention had been to accept the Amendment in page 110, line 1, but I had intended to say that it would have to be altered later because it is in the wrong place in the Schedule, dealing only with the Greater London Council, and goes further than the Government think proper at this stage about the "no-detriment" provision for salaries on the non-equivalent basis. Subject to those two points, I had intended to advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Reynolds

That makes the position worse. The Minister intended to advise acceptance of the Amendment but to alter it at some later date. At any rate, he had intended to say, "I will put something in the Bill, somewhere, which will cover some of the points contained in what the Committee decided and what the Amendment lays down." He has now decided, in 45 minutes of debate, to wipe the whole lot from the Bill—to wipe out what the Committee put in, and to take no notice of the Amendment—

Sir K. Joseph

No, because had the "no-detriment-to-salary" implication of the Amendment as it stands been taken out it would, in my view, have done no more than repeat, without any implication about freezing the negotating posi-

tion, what was in the Amendment that was carried yesterday.

Mr. Reynolds

In that case, I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should accept it, and why he did not come to the conclusion from the beginning that he would advise undoing the work of the Committee. The more the Minister says about this the more confused I get, and the more amazed members of the London County Council staff will be at the way in which matters concerning their future are decided in a 35-minute debate in this House, with the Minister finishing up with a completely different point of view from when he started, and advising the House to take a different line of action from that which he intended to advise at the beginning of the debate.

It is a fantastic situation. As with many other parts of this Measure, we have not been able to give proper consideration to this matter. At no stage has Schedule 4 been given any consideration, and those outside who are affected by the decisions taken here should have regard to the way in which this is being done.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 231.

Division No. 91.] AYES [7.58 p.m.
Alnsley, William Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Houghton, Douglas
Albu, Robert (Paddington, S.) Deer, George Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Delargy, Hugh Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central) Dempsey, Jamee Hoy, James H.
Bacon, Miss Alice Dodds, Norman Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Baird, John Driberg, Tom Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Barnett, Guy Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Beaney, Alan Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hunter, A. E.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Benson, Sir George Fitch, Alan Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Blackburn, F. Fletcher, Eric Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Blyton, William Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Janner, Sir Barnett
Boardman, H. Forman, J. C. Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Boyden, James Galpern, Sir Myer Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Bradley, Tom Ginsburg, David Jones, Elwyn (west Ham, s.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Gourlay, Harry Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Brockway, A. Fenner Greenwood, Anthony Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Kelley, Richard
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
King, Dr. Horace
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Lawson, George
Callaghan, James Gunter, Ray Ledger, Ron
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Chapman, Donald Hamilton, William (West Fife) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Cliffe, Michael Hannan, William Lipton, Marcus
Collick, Percy Harper, Joseph Loughlin, Charles
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hart, Mrs. Judith Lubbock, Eric
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hayman, F, H. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Cronin, John Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis) McBride, N.
Crosland, Anthony Hill, J. (Midlothian) McCann, John
Dalyell, Tam Hilton, A. V. MacColl, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Holman, Percy Mcinnes, James
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hooson, H. E. McKay, John (Wallsend)
McLeavy, Frank Pavitt, Laurence Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Swain, Thomas
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Peart, Frederick Swingler, Stephen
Mahon, Simon Pentland, Norman Symonds, J. B.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Plummer, Sir Leslie Taverne, D.
Mallalieu.J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Manuel, Archie Probert, Arthur Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Mapp, Charles Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Marsh, Richard Rankin, John Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Mason, Roy Redhead, E. C. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Mellish, R. J. Reynolds, G. W. Thornton, Ernest
Mendelson, J. J. Rhodes, H. Timmons, John
Millan, Bruce Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Tomney, Frank
Milne, Edward Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Wainwright, Edwin
Mitchison, G. R. Robertson, John (Paisley) Warbey, William
Monslow, Walter Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) Watkins, Tudor
Moody, A. S. Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Weitzman, David
Morris, John Ross, William White, Mrs. Eirene
Moyle, Arthur Royle, Charles (Salford, West) Whitlock, Wiliam
Mulley, Frederick Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Wigg, George
Neal, Harold Short, Edward Wilkins, W. A.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Silverman, Julius (Aston) Willey, Frederick
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
O'Mally, B. K. Skeffington, Arthur Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Oram, A. E. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Oswald, Thomas Small, William Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Owen, Wi[...] Sorenson, R. W. Winterbottom, R. E.
Padley, W. E. Spriggs, Leslie Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Paget, R. T. Steele, Thomas Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Ziltiacus, K.
Pargiter, G. A. Storehouse, John
Parker, John Stones, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter du Cann, Edward Hutchison, Michael Clark
Allason, James Duncan, Sir James Iremonger, T. L.
Atkins, Humphrey Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Emery, Peter James, David
Balniel, Lord Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Barlow, Sir John Errington, Sir Eric Jennings, J. C.
Batsford, Brian Farey-Jones, F. W. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Farr, John Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Finlay, Graeme Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Bidgood, John C. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Biffen, John Forrest, George Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Biggs-Davison, John Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&Stone) Kerans, Cdr. J. s.
Bingham, R. M. Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Kerby, Capt. Henry
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Freeth, Denzil Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Bishop, F. p. Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Kimball, Marcus
Black, Sir Cyril Gardner, Edward Kirk, Peter
Bossom, Hon. Clive George, Sir John (Pollok) Kitson, Timothy
Bourne-Arton, A. Gibson-Watt, David Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Box, Donald Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central) Leavey, J. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Lilley, F. J. P.
Brewis, John Gower, Raymond Lindsay, Sir Martin
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Grant-Ferris, R. Linstead, Sir Hugh
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Green, Alan Litchfield, Capt. John
Bullard, Denys Gresham Cooke, R. Longden, Gilbert
Burden, F. A. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Loveys, Walter H.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Gurden, Harold Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hall, John (Wycombe) MacArthur, Ian
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricla
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Harris, Reader (Heston) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Cary, Sir Robert Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Chataway, Christopher Harvie Anderson, Miss McMaster, Stanley R.
Chichester-Clark, R. Hay, John Macpherson,Rt. Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maitland, Sir John
Cleaver, Leonard Henderson, John (Cathcart) Marshall, Douglas
Cole, Norman Hendry, Forbes Marten, Nell
Cooke, Robert Hiley, Joseph Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Corfield, F, V. Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Mawby, Ray
Costain, A. P. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Coulson, Michael Hirst, Geoffrey Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hocking, Philip N. Mills, Stratton
Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne) Holland, Philip Miscampbell, Norman
Critchley, Julian Hopkins, Alan Montgomery, Fergus
Cunningham, Knox Hornby, R. P. More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Curran, Charles Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Morgan, William
Dance, James Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Donaldson, Cmdr, c. E. M. Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral John Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Doughty, Charles Hughes-Young, Michael Neave, Airey
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael Roots, William Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Turner, Colin
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Scott-Hopkins, James van Straubenzee, W. R.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Sharples, Richard Vane, W. M. F.
Osborn, John (Hallam) Shaw, M. Vickers, Miss Joan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Shepherd, William Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Page, Graham (Crosby) Skeet, T. H. H. Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Page, John (Harrow, West) Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Walder, David
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John Walker, Peter
Partridge, E. Spearman, Sir Alexander Wall, Patrick
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Speir, Rupert Ward, Dame Irene
Peel, John Stanley, Hon. Richard Webster, David
Percival, Ian Stevens, Geoffrey Wells, John (Maidstone)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Whitelaw, William
Pitman, Sir James Stodart, J. A. Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Pott, Percivall Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcoim Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Storey, Sir Samuel Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Price, David (Eastleîgh) Studholme, Sir Henry Wise, A. R.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Prior, J. M. L. Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) Woodhouse, c. M.
Proudfoot, Wilfred Temple, John M. Woodnutt, Mark
Quennell, Miss J. M. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Woollam, John
Ramsden, James Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury) Worsley, Marcus
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ridsdale, Julian Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir B. (B'pool,S.) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

It being after Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the remaining part of the Bill.

Amendment made: In page 110, line 16, leave out "treasurer and surveyor" and insert "and the treasurer".—[Mr. Corfield.]