HC Deb 15 July 1963 vol 681 cc176-94

"(1) For the purposes of section 1 of this Act, every local authority shall establish a case committee. The Members of the case committee may be members of the local authority or persons specially qualified by reason of their knowledge of and interest in the welfare of children. For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, the members of the case committee shall be an interviewing panel of whom not more than five nor less than three shall sit at one time.

(2) The case committee shall exercise a general supervision over the casework of the children's officer and from time to time receive from him written or oral reports on the progress of children in care, affording to him such help and advice as they can.

(3) The case committee shall delegate to the interviewing panel the consideration of the welfare of any child—

  1. (a) referred to them by a chief officer of police, or
  2. (b) referred to them by the chief education officer of their area, or
  3. (c) whose parent or guardian is dissatisfied with a decision of the local authority not to receive him into care, or
  4. (d) whose welfare, in the opinion of the children's officer, presents special difficulty, or
  5. (e) in respect of whom the children's officer is unable to secure the agreement of the parent or guardian for the care, training or treatment, which he thinks appropriate, or
  6. (f) in respect of whom it is proposed to assume parental rights under section 2 of the Children Act 1948.

(4) For the purposes of section 2 of this Act (which provides for children and young persons in need of care, protection or control) it shall be evidence that a child or young person is not receiving such care, protection and guidance as a good parent may reasonably be expected to give if he or his parent or guardian or both have failed to attend a meeting of the interviewing panel to which they have been called."—[Mr. MacColl.]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th July], That the Clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

9.48 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

When I spoke on this matter on 5th July, I expressed amazement at the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to dispose of the issues before the House at that time in a matter of a few minutes. The more I consider what he said on that day the more I am satisfied that my view was right, and I hope that in the meantime the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have had time to think over the position and see whether they can change their minds in relation to the Clause.

This Clause was fully and aptly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. McColl) who, of all people, is fully entitled to have his views considered and, in consequence of his tremendous experience, to have them considered particularly by the Home Secretary. What does the Home Secretary say?— We all want to keep children out of court, if we can. Within a few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman said: The Ingleby Committee, having very pains-takingly examined these possibilities, reached the conclusion that there was no real alternative of a social welfare character to taking a number of children to court. We say that we want to take such steps as we possibly canto reduce to the bare minimum the numbers who are taken to court. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the speech which he made and see whether what we propose does not go a considerable way towards keeping children out of court. That is the primary and the full object of the Bill.

Those of us who know something of it realise that an attempt is being made here to enable children to be kept out of the juvenile courts, and particularly those who are in need of care and attention, so that they may be restored to a condition of happiness and understanding without the necessity of appearing before a tribunal.

We are trying to round off the whole matter by suggesting certain methods which should be adopted by all local authorities. The responsibility is ours. We are introducing this Measure, we are imposing upon the local authorities an obligation and it is our duty to ensure that what we ask them to do has a type of machinery which enables them to understand what we are driving at and how the work is to be done effectively.

What does the Home Secretary say? It was very kind of him when, in the few minutes in which he spoke, he said I agree with my hon. Friend, too, that today's debate will be read with great interest by children's officers, chairmen of children's committees, town clerks and others. I hope that they will read the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes and study the ideas that he developed. I hope that they will gain ideas from his speech which will be valuable in their own localities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 821–2.] The Home Secretary said that that was surely a better way than directing local authorities as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes wanted and was what, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman was commending to the attention of the various authorities who had to put these proposals into effect.

To say that what somebody has proposed is the correct way of dealing with a situation and to commend it to those who have to put an Act of Parliament into effect, and then immediately to say, "But we will let you use your discretion whether you agree with the view I am taking of the matter in commending these views to you" is not a logical way of looking at the matter.

We represent the people, and the obligation is ours to make proper provision for a child who is put into the care of a local authority. I say with the greatest respect that not all local authorities have the wisdom that is necessary to be able to prepare machinery which can be effective for the purposes which we in the House of Commons direct them to exercise. Why should not we devise a method on the lines indicated in the new Clause which could be given to local authorities for them to carry into effect.

Do we not have in mind the interests of the child? Do we as a House of Commons—in other words, does the country—think that if a child is put into the care of a local authority, there should not be a case committee? Why should there not be a case committee? It cannot understand any hon. Member disagreeing with the idea that a smaller committee than the children's committee should be appointed to do this work instead of the children's committee being encumbered with other matters on the administrative side. Why do we not do what we do in the case of the juvenile courts? The Home Secretary directs them to do to a very considerable extent what we are asking for here. Does the right hon. Gentleman think he is wrong? Is he prepared to delegate his authority with regard to procedure to some other body? Of course not. He knows very well that care for children with criminal tendencies or who make mistakes is one of his chief duties. That being so, if he tells courts exactly what they are to do, why should he not do the same thing when he hands the same children over to another authority?

Surely the right hon. Gentleman has not come to the conclusion that case committees are no use? What about the smaller committee? Does he not agree that the children's officer should have not only the opportunity to go to a case committee but also the benefit of being in constant contact with a smaller body, of perhaps three or five people to whom he can go for advice at any time any day whenever a contingency arises? What is wrong about that?

I could understand it if the right hon. Gentleman said "These proposals do not quite meet the position. We are prepared to listen to alternatives." But he says that the whole matter should be thrown over to the local authority. Is he satisfied that every local authority is doing everything he wants it to do in every respect? Does he really think that there are not some local authorities which would not undertake the important duty of ensuring that every child that comes within its care is not only used as an instrument to be cared for by a machine but has the full benefit of human understanding by people who know what they are talking about and can be appointed by reason of their experience? That is all that we are asking for? Why does he hesitate?

This is an extremely important matter. I cannot agree that the Home Secretary should just brush it aside saying, "Your ideas are fine, and I approve of them. When people read about them, they will realise what great thought there is behind them", but taking no further action. What does he mean by that? What he is saying is that they should be approved. Why should he not say definitely "Approve them", and there would be an end of it. The case committee is essential. It is not a question of the discretion of any body. It is highly essential—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Sir B. Janner

I want to conclude with an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He should not ignore the fact that this responsibility of ours is of a very high nature. There is a human element involved. I hope that, having considered what I have said, or at least what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has said, the right hon. Gentleman will come to the conclusion that the only right thing to do is to direct from the centre exactly how these committees and councils are to work.

I should say that I am not expressing the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I have the privilege to be a vice-president, for there is a difference of opinion on this. But I believe my view to be correct, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to this very reasonable request.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I, too, ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his attitude. This new Clause would have a strong bearing on Clause 1, which is the hub of the Bill, dealing with the prevention of the neglect of children. The right hon. Gentleman said on 5th July: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Widnes is anxious to devise an alternative system to bringing children into court.. The Ingleby Committee.. reached the conclusion that there was no real alternative of a social welfare character to taking a number of children into court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 822.] But that is not accurate. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Ingleby Committee suggested that it should not be possible for parents to take children to court, and that his own Bill limits the number of people who can take children to court. Probably the best answer to the problem he enunciated is contained in an article in the Observer on 28th October, 1962, in which a lady well known to the House, Phyllis Marks, said: In the course of several visits abroad as a magistrate, I have often had to explain defensively, but with no inner conviction, why we bring children under 14 before our courts. One feels something of a barbarian when, for example, a Danish judge says, 'We are not interested in whether the child is proved a criminal or not. We only try to find out if this is a child who needs help'. That is a wise and sensible approach to the problem. It is not delinquent children so often but delinquent parents who are responsible—for instance, the mother who cannot cope or is married to an alcoholic or a man who misspends his income. Surely the children are not responsible for that. Since Clause 1 applies to Scotland, there is also a responsibility on the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I see in his place, to try to coax—or browbeat, if that is possible—the Home Secretary into a more reasonable attitude.

This immediately brings us back to the Mc Boyle Report, which was not available until after the Bill had had its Second Reading. Some of that Report's most important paragraphs are on precisely this point. About the difficulty of the detection of the neglect of children, the Report says that where there is talk of courts and the law, it is more difficult for cases to be reported to the authorities simply because of the disinclination of many people, professional and otherwise, to come forward with information if it means a day from work. In the meantime, a child may be suffering if not physically, then mentally or spiritually.

Doctors, social workers, relatives and teachers are in a position to recognise when a child is suffering from neglect. Visitors to such homes can see the con- ditions—lack of food or heating or bedding. Teachers know the children and can pick out the child who is ill-clad, or withdrawn, or apathetic, or absent from school. Neighbours know when children are left alone for long periods, although that does not always mean serious neglect for there are many parents who, while not having the standards which would be generally approved, do not necessarily neglect their children. The McBoyle Report asks why it is that even with such indications of neglect, these conditions do not more often lead to remedial action. It is because relatives and neighbours are disinclined to report matters.

It goes on to say that if the preventive services were allowed to continue to seem to be connected with courts and with the law, little help could be expected from outside their ranks because of people's natural disinclination to be classified as informers. If the necessary information is unlikely to reach the preventive services unless they are clearly seen by professional and lay people to be identified with welfare services, this will continue to be the position.

The McBoyle Report suggested that the long-term answer was a welfare service, a welfare family unit, but in the short term local authorities in Scotland, and I think in England and Wales, in the 1950s were asked to appoint an officer to undertake the co-ordination of all statutory and voluntary bodies in their areas likely to have any knowledge of cruelty to or neglect of children. Six years later, only 22 authorities in Scotland had set up such committees, and even they did not then meet regularly, and 42 had appointed co-ordinating officers. By February, 1962, 31 authorities had appointed co-ordinating committees and 46 had appointed officers of whom 20 were children's officers. The McBoyle Report recommends that it should be the children's officers who should be designated for these purposes. My Scottish colleagues and I would like to know what progress has been made in this matter and whether more officers have been appointed.

Whatever the improvement of recent years, the bulk of the evidence which the McBoyle Committee received shows that the present arrangements for the co-ordination of preventive work do not work satisfactorily. That is a grave statement. In view of the sincere speeches and in view of the Ingleby Report which supports our purposes, even if he is not able to go all the way to meet us, I hope that the Home Secretary will agree, when all the tendency with the prevention of cruelty to children is to keep the children out of the courts, to act in accordance with the majority wishes of hon. Members and people outside the House and to accept our proposal.

Miss Alice Bacon (Leeds, South-East)

We tabled this new Clause for two purposes. First, to obtain a better working of Clause 1. We have had three excellent speeches from this side of the House showing how this new Clause would help the better working of Clause 1, and I do not propose to repeat what has been said.

The second reason for tabling the new Clause was to answer the question: what should we do with those under the age of criminal responsibility when they cannot be charged with having committed a crime? The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), with whom I usually agree on these matters, has tabled an Amendment which seeks to answer this question, but I disagree with her Amendment because I believe that the case committee is much the better way of dealing with a child under the age of criminal responsibility.

We have tabled an Amendment to increase the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. We tabled a similar Amendment during the Committee stage upstairs. It may be that this Amendment will not be called, but when in Committee upstairs we were asked by the right hon. Gentleman what we were going to do to deal with children who were under the age of criminal responsibility now that we were raising the age from 8 to 10, or, as we desire, from 8 to 12, or even higher?

The right hon. Gentleman said during our proceedings in Committee upstairs on 9th May: First, what does one do about the boy, a little below the age of criminal responsibility whatever that may be, who breaks somebody's window or is believed to have stolen something from Woolworths? We have to find a practical answer, and I submit that it is not enough to say that we ought to be able to leave the problem to the educational system or to social welfare, or the guardianship court, or any other authority, unless we know precisely what it is we are leaving to them. I am inclined to criticise those who, in the editorial columns of The Times, have sought to find fault with the Government, and with myself, for not producing a solution when nobody has produced an adequate solution up to now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 9th May, 1963, c. 446.] The right hon. Gentleman then wanted us to produce a detailed solution, and yet towards the end of our last sitting on the Report stage he said just the opposite. He said that we ought not to be tied down to details of this kind.

The right hon. Gentleman knocks down whatever argument we put forward. First, he says that we must not be too specific, and then he asks for more details. We believe that this case committee could deal with many children without them going to court at all. Not only do I not want children to be charged with a crime; I do not want them to be taken before the courts at all. We believe that this case committee is a way of keeping very young children out of the courts.

Because of this, and because the new Clause will facilitate the working of Clause 1, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give way on this, although he has said that he will not. If he does not, and if he adheres to the speech that he made at our last sitting when this subject was being debated, I think that we must show our dissatisfaction and vote for this new Clause in the Division Lobby.

10.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke)

In view of the ten days' interval, if I might have permission to speak again, I should like to remind the House that the issue between us is whether we should give local authorities discretion to do a job in what seems to the elected members the best way in relation to the circumstances of the area, or whether we should do what in my submission Parliament should always be chary of doing, namely, lay down in great detail, as the new Clause does, the precise administrative machinery which every local authority must wear as a straitjacket, whether its elected members believe that this is the most appropriate method for the particular needs of the place or not. We are all at one that children should be kept out of the juvenile court wherever possible and that taking them to the court should be the last recourse and not the first.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I read the Clause very carefully and, as far as I know, it does not specify in detail what the case committee has to do. It merely says that when it finds an appropriate case it shall refer it for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes in his arguments appears to us, with all his virtues, to convey a somewhat dishonest method of argument. The detail has no relation at all to what the case committee has to do. It is merely allocating the type of case necessary for consideration. Having done that, it is for the case committee to say, "We think that on the whole it is a matter for consideration by the appropriate authority." Is that not true?

Mr. Brooke

I sought to obtain the leave of the House to speak again and then the hon. Member interrupts my speech when I have hardly begun it. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument as I would wish to do.

The Clause does not tell the committee in detail what it is to do in every case, but it lays down in considerable detail the precise administrative machinery. I shall seek to show that that machinery would cause some confusion in relation to the established responsibility of the children's committee.

First, on the matter of keeping children out of court, I am quite certain that every children's authority in the country is reluctant to take a child to court unless it is absolutely necessary. If the parents are co-operative then it may well not be necessary. As the Ingleby Committee pointed out, all these provisions of a social welfare character will carry one along for the period during which the parents are willing to co-operate, but if the time comes when they are not willing to co-operate then all the social welfare arrangements lose their power and, in the end, the child has to be brought to court. I do not see in this Clause anything which is likely to compel a parent to co-operate. There are certain provisions which indicate rather surprisingly that a parent who, for one reason or another, does not attend before an interviewing panel may find that regarded as proof that he is not giving proper care and attention to his child. That seems to me a very special treatment of parents.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman listened to my speech and, therefore, must have heard what I said. I did not say that it was proof. I said that it was evidence, and even the right hon. Gentleman, as a layman, is not entitled to say in this House that proof is the same as evidence. Admissable evidence is one thing; proof is another. The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House.

Mr. Brooke

There is no question of my misleading the House. It certainly seems that, under this Clause the parents will be presumed to be not giving proper care and attention to their child if, for whatever cause—it may be a good cause—they do not attend the meetings, but this is a minor point. The major point is what attitude Parliament is to adopt towards local authorities.

Hon. Members who have spoken will grant me this. I have some experience of local authority work, and I can tell the House that there is hardly a local authority in the country which would not demur at this kind of treatment by Parliament, if Parliament sought first to impose upon it a general duty to try to prevent the breaking up of homes and were then to dictate to it in detail the machinery by which it should proceed.

Moreover, the functions of the case committee, as set out in the new Clause, will go some way beyond Clause 1, even though, at the beginning of the new Clause, it is stated that the case committee shall operate For the purposes of section 1 of this Act. There is no doubt that if the case committee is to exercise a general supervision over the casework of a children's officer, according to subsection (2) of the new Clause, a great deal of that casework will lie outside the scope of Clause 1. The children's officer will find himself or herself serving two masters.

That is exactly the sort of thing that we should avoid in arranging this administrative machinery. It is another and more technical reason why a local authority would jib at being instructed that it was to carry out its functions under Clause 1 in this way and in no other. I would remind the House of two things. First, in the history of the children's service, since it was reorganised and revitalised by the 1948 Act, there have been very few occasions when there has been what might be called a breakdown in communications between the Home Office and a particular children's authority. On the whole, children's authorities have worked in the closest concert with the Home Office. On the whole, they have done their job extremely well. Almost without exception they have been willing to listen to suggestions or criticisms from the Home Office if they were in any way slipping and not doing what they should be doing. This is not a service which one needs to approach with a bludgeon in one's hand.

Under Section 39 of the Children Act, 1948, a children's committee already has wide powers to establish, at its discretion, sub-committees, which may include persons specially qualified by reason of experience or training in matters relating to the functions of the committee … That is to say, children's authorities throughout the country have power to set up committees of this character, to do this kind of work in this kind of way, and there is no need to prescribe to them that they should do so.

The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) claimed that all that he was doing was to suggest some methods to local authorities and to indicate to local authorities how they might do this. But that is not what the Clause does. The Clause lays down what they should do, which is a very different matter from suggesting. If this Clause were incorporated into the Bill local authorities would have no choice. They would have to adopt this method and no other, and would have to adopt it for Clause 1, when the Measure came into force, even though this would not tie in conveniently with the arrangements that they were making for all their other child work under the Children Act.

Sir B. Janner

The right hon. Gentleman should realise that if that was the interpretation he put upon what I said it was not what I intended to convey. I was suggesting it to him, and not to local authorities. These were suggestions made to him, which we hoped he would adopt.

Mr. Brooke

I took down the hon. Member's words as best I could. He spoke of "indicating to local authorities". This new Clause is much more than an indication; it is an order to local authorities. That is what divides us.

Mr. Hale

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where there is an order in this Clause at all? The operative words are: The case committee shall delegate to the interviewing panel the consideration of the welfare of any child". What is there obligatory, mandatory, declaratory in that? It is an advisory proposition in the interests of the child.

Mr. Brooke

What the new Clause says is that For the purposes of Section 1 of this Act, every local authority shall establish a case committee.

Mr. Hale

For consideration.

Mr. Brooke

It says that the case committee shall exercise a general supervision over the casework of the children's officer. … The case committee shall delegate to the interviewing panel"— six matters which are laid down there. That may cut right across the satisfactory manner in which the local authority is discharging already all the other functions under the Children Act which are being added to by Clause 1 of this Bill. If this new Clause were incorporated in the Bill, then however well those arrangements were working the authority would have to modify them in order to fit in with the mandatory terms of this new Clause. I submit that this is really not the right way to legislate for the relationship between Parliament and the local authorities, and I believe I have every local authority up and down the country behind me in saying those words, and I hope the House will reject the new Clause.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)

I should like to refer my right hon. Friend to subsection (3,d) which says: whose welfare, in the opinion of the children's officer presents special difficulty". That is something which occurs from time to time, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will give us in some detail the Government's view on that paragraph.

Mr. Brooke

I think it is not very easy for me to explain in detail the full significance of wording for which I am not responsible. It is true that the children's committee already has special responsibility towards children of this type, but the point here is that under the most important Clause of this Bill the children's authority is being given new powers to step in at an earlier stage than hitherto it has been able to do, in order to try to save a situation arising where the child may have to be taken into care, because there is no other means of looking after its welfare.

I think that we all, without difference of party, would agree that if the family can be kept together without damage to the well-being of the child then that will, in general, be always the best solution.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question, in view of the remarks I made at a previous sitting. I feel it is essential that we should have some form of case committee although I do not agree with the details as laid out in the new Clause—

Mr. Speaker

I am not sure what is happening, but if the hon. Lady wishes to speak again, having spoken once, she requires the leave of the House to do so.

Miss Vickers

The last time I spoke was on another day, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

But on the same Question. The hon. Lady may get the leave of the House if she asks for it. All I am saying is that she requires it.

Miss Vickers

May I have the leave of the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] I would ask my right hon. Friend, if the hon. Gentleman opposite would agree, to consider the establishment of a case committee, but ending subsection (1) with the words interest in the welfare of children",

I think it is advisable to put into the Bill provision for some type of case committee, although I agree with my right hon. Friend in feeling that we should not perhaps lay out the provision in the detail set out here.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hale

I understand that it is the desire of my hon. Friends to test the opinion of the House on this matter, and I have no wish to detain them. I will, therefore, confine myself to two or at most three minutes. First, I would say—and not with any desire to be discourteous to the Home Secretary—that I do not think that I have ever heard a more dishonest speech from the Front Bench than his. He has grossly misrepresented every word in the Amendment. He appears to have done it deliberately, and it is fair respect to his intelligence to say that he surely could not have done so by inadvertence or lack of understanding.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Accusations of deliberate misrepresentation in a personal form must be withdrawn. They are not within the rules of order.

Mr. Hale

With my respect for the Chair and the feeling which I have for the Home Secretary—I never wish to be rude to him—you place me, Mr. Speaker, in some difficulty. With the respect which I have for you as the most distinguished occupant of the Chair for many years, you place me in a position in which I feel that I cannot withdraw an allegation in this matter when every hon. Member here knows that there has been gross, deliberate misrepresentation. In the circumstances, I cannot do it.

Out of respect for you, I will withdraw from the House at the conclusion of my speech. Indeed, I will do so now rather than consent to take part in something which to me, whatever is due in courtesy to the House, would be an act of dishonesty to which, in the circumstances concerning the welfare of children, I could not commit myself.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 175.

Division No. 163.] AYES [10.32 p.m.
Abse, Leo Beaney, Alan Boardman, H.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Bacon, Miss Alice Blyton, William Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Bowles, Frank Herbison, Miss Margaret Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hill, J. (Midlothian) Reynolds, G. W.
Bradley, Tom Holman, Percy Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Houghton, Douglas Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hoy, James H. Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hunter, A. E. Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Ross, William
Carmichael, Neil Janner, Sir Barnett Silkin, J.
Cliffe, Michael Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Skeffington, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Cronin, John Jones, Dan (Burnley) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Small, William
Dalyell, Tam Kelley, Richard Sorensen, R. W.
Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kenyon, Clifford Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lever, L. M, (Ardwick) Stonehouse, John
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Loughlin, Charles Stones, William
Dempsey, James McCann, John Swain, Thomas
Dodds, Norman MacColl, James Taverne, D.
Duthie, Sir William MacDermot, Niall Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edelman, Maurice McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Tomney, Frank
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderfield, E.) Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Manuel, Archie Ward, Dame Irene
Evans, Albert Mapp, Charles Watkins, Tudor
Fernyhough, E. Marsh, Richard Weitzman, David
Finch, Harold Mayhew, Christopher Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fitch, Alan Millan, Bruce Whitlock, William
Foley, M. Milne, Edward Wigg, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchison, G. R. Wilkins, W. A.
Galpern, Sir Myer Monslow, Walter Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Gourlay, Harry Mulley, Frederick Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Greenwood, Anthony O'Malley, B. K. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oswald, Thomas Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gunter, Ray Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Woof, Robert
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Prentice, R. E. Wyatt, Woodrow
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hannan, William Probert, Arthur
Harper, Joseph Pursey, Cmdr. Harry TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hayman, F. H. Randall, Harry Mr. Lawson and
Healey, Denis Redhead, E. C. Mr. Charles A. Howell.
Aitken, Sir William Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Leavey, J. A.
Allason, James Elliott, R. W. (Ne'c'tle -upon-Tyne, N.) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ashton, Sir Hubert Emery, Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Atkins, Humphrey Errington, Sir Eric Lindsay, Sir Martin
Barlow, Sir John Finlay, Graeme Linstead, Sir Hugh
Barter, John Fisher, Nigel Litchfield, Capt. John
Batsford, Brian Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Longden, Gilbert
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Loveys, Walter H.
Bidgood, John C. Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Lubbock, Eric
Biffen, John Goodhew, Victor Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Biggs-Davison, John Gower, Raymond McAdden, Sir Stephen
Bingham, R. M. Green, Alan McLaren, Martin
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Grosvenor, Lord Robert McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Bishop, F. P. Hall, John (Wycombe) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Black, Sir Cyril Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Bossom, Hon. Clive Harris, Reader (Heston) McMaster, Stanley R.
Bourne-Arton, A. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Braine, Bernard Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maddan, Martin
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Maitland, Sir John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Henderson, John (Carthcart) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Brooman-White, R. Hendry, Forbes Marten, Neil
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Buck, Antony Hirst, Geoffrey Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Bullard, Denis Holland, Philip Mawby, Ray
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hopkins, Alan Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham) Hornby, R. P. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Chichester-Clark, R. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Miscampbell, Norman
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Morgan, William
Coulson, Michael Hughes-Young, Michael Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Hulbert, Sir Norman Neave, Airey
Crowder, F. P. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Currie, G. B. H. James, David Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Johnson Eric (Blackley) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Doughty, Charles Kerby, Capt. Henry Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Drayson, G. B. Kirk, Peter Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
du Cann, Edward Kitson, Timothy Peel, John
Eden, John Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Pike, Miss Mervyn Smithers, Peter Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Pilkington, Sir Richard Spearman, Sir Alexander Walder, David
Pitman, Sir James Stanley, Hon. Richard Walker, Peter
Pitt, Dame Edith Stevens, Geoffrey Wall, Patrick
Pott, Percivall Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Webster, David
Powett, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Storey, Sir Samuel Wells, John (Maidstone)
Pym, Francis Studholme, Sir Henry Whitelaw, William
Ramsden, James Summers, Sir Spencer Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Talbot, John E. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) Wise, A. R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.) Woodhouse, C. M.
Roots, William Thomas, Peter (Conway) Woodnutt, Mark
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton) Woollam, John
Scott-Hopkins, James Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Worsley, Marcus
Seymour, Leslie Thorpe, Jeremy
Sharples, Richard Tilney, John (Wavertree) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Shepherd, William Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
Skeet, T. H. H. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Mr. MacArthur.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) van Straubenzee, W. R.