HC Deb 10 February 1965 vol 706 cc383-401

3.45 p.m.

Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that it might be convenient to consider, at the same time, the following Amendments: In Schedule 1, page 15, line 26, after "State", insert "when in the Cabinet".

In Schedule 1, page 15, line 31, at the end insert: Minister of State not in the Cabinet … 5,625

Mr. Wise

The Chief Secretary rebuked me heavily once for trying to hint that the main purport of a large number of the Clauses of the Bill was to reduce the House roughly to the position of the Reichstag, but I am unrepentant. I think that we are witnessing a tendency for so increasing the power of the Prime Minister, and, therefore, the power of the Executive, that we go back to Fox's famous Motion, carried in this House by acclamation: The Power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished". We should take a serious look at the Clauses of the Bill, even at this rather late stage.

What we are proposing is to empower the Prime Minister to vary, up or down, with a limit on the top, because he can vary down and then up again if he wishes, the salary of a Minister of State. Hitherto, it has been possible for a Prime Minister who falls out with one of his Ministers of State to request his resignation. Indeed, there was an occasion during the life of the last Parliament when this was done on a fairly extensive scale. It gave satisfaction all round, particularly to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

What we are doing here is giving a power which did not exist then, and it will be particularly difficult for the party opposite to use this disciplinary power of requesting resignations because they now have so many people in office that they cannot dismiss anybody because they cannot replace him. We are, therefore, removing this wholesome form of discipline which the Executive had before.

The Government can now introduce a system of punishment by purse. I do not think that this would be desirable. I do not think that if the Prime Minister wakes up one day with a slight "touch of liver", he should be able to look at the first Minister of State who comes in to see him, and say, "You are not worth £8,000 a year. From now on it will be £6,000 for you, and if I 'have a liver' again next week it will probably be down to £5,000". This is an extra-ordinary power to give to any one man over persons who, in theory at least, are his equals.

Let us not lose sight of that fact. A back bencher is the equal of the Prime Minister in this House. He has the same rights as the Prime Minister. A back bencher yields priority to right hon. Members in the right to be heard slightly more often, a priority which I would not suggest they abuse, but this goes to a further and deeper interference with the traditions and customs of the House, because included in the subsection which we are proposing to delete there are a large number of offices, such as the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Paymaster-General. These offices are a great deal older than the office of Prime Minister. They are based on tradition, and, in my view, they should not be subject to the whim of whoever is leading a majority in the House of Commons.

Once upon a time they were officers of the Crown. In theory, of course, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster still is one. He draws his salary for his valuable administrative services in running the Duchy of Lancaster. It should not be for the Prime Minister, at any moment, to say that the Duchy of Lancaster has so diminished in value, or has been so badly run, that the person holding the office ought to have a reduction in salary.

This is a form of minor punishment which I regard as wholly undesirable, and I trust that we shall be able to persuade the Government to think again on this point. It will not affect the Government very much in their effort to increase the proper remuneration of Ministers of the Crown. Indeed, I do not doubt that we shall be assured that the Prime Minister will never do such a thing as arbitrarily to reduce the salary of a Minister of State, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Paymaster-General—and especially not the Paymaster-General.

But if he does not intend to do this, why bother to give him the power? Let these unfortunate men at least know that so long as they hold their offices they can reckon on the same cheque being paid to them, month by month, as the life of Parliament goes on. They will not enjoy it for long; we might as well let them have the best of it while the going is good.

I am reminded that I should have inquired what salaries the present Ministers of State are getting in the Lords and Commons. It is suggested that this is pure class legislation—one law for the nobility and another for the squires and knights. I believe that the squires and knights are rather better off on the deal. I shall be interested to hear the hon. Member refresh our memories as to the salaries that are paid.

Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)

The genial if not facetious way in which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) introduced the Amendment made it clear that we are not intended to take it seriously. I will deal with it seriously for two minutes, however, in case any hon. Member is misguided or foolish enough to believe that the hon. Member was serious. The simple answer to the hon. Member's argument, as he well knows, is that this subsection retains the right of the Prime Minister to exercise some flexibility in the use of various Ministries and in the duties put upon various Ministers.

Subsection (2,b) speaks not merely about the great offices of the Crown, as such; it speaks of the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and so on, when they are not members of the Cabinet. In that sense it reserves the right of the Prime Minister to pick special duties for them if he so wishes, thereby affording him some flexibility if he wishes to use those offices for people outside the Cabinet. The remuneration fixed by the Prime Minister in those circumstances would vary according to the duties he attached to the offices, especially as the holders of those offices were outside the Cabinet.

Subsection (2,a) reserves flexibility to the Prime Minister in the case of Ministers of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We know that the office of Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a fairly new creation in governmental jobs, and that the future salary will surely depend from time to time upon the duties attached to that new job, which is now only in a period of development, and in a future Government might not need to be as powerful as it is now. That is why the Prime Minister should reserve to himself the right to some flexibility in attaching less important duties and less power to the job, and to pay a correspondingly lower salary.

The hon. Member is dressing up with heavy words what is meant to be merely a leg-pull against the present Administration. It will not wash. His argument carries no conviction, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will resist the Amendment and expose it for the piece of nonsense that it is.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond)

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) put his finger on the heart of the matter when he referred to the flexibility which is rightly provided here to fit the salary to the responsibility rather than to fit it to the title irrespective of the responsibility carried by the holder of the office for the time being.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) was a little inflexible in his approach. His arguments were not wholly dissimilar to those that I have heard on a previous occasion. He asked me to regard the Amendment with sympathy. I shall regard part of it with considerable sympathy. One of the things that he proposes is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should receive an increase in salary. I propose to give very careful and sympathetic thought to that point.

Apart from that, and being quite serious about the matter, I hope that I can satisfy the House that on the material point no new pattern of flexibility is being introduced. Broadly, we are carrying on in exactly the same way as hitherto. Perhaps the simplest way of demonstrating this is to give an account of the offices and the salaries attached to them.

The real complaint of the hon. Member for Rugby is that there is unnecessary flexibility in the arrangements proposed, which the Amendment seeks to remove. On the contrary, in terms of maximum salary it is we who are introducing inflexibility by imposing a maximum salary in respect of Ministers of State. In the previous Administration there was no maximum. It was open to the then Prime Minister to appoint Ministers of State at salaries that he regarded as appropriate. Apparently there was no ceiling; the Prime Minister could have appointed them at any salary. In fact, he appointed them at salaries related to the responsibilities attached to their offices.

Some were appointed at the equivalent of £5,000 a year, some at £4,500 and some at £3,750. I hope that the hon. Member does not want me to give the exact titles. Broadly, there were three grades.

Sir Martin Redmayne (Rushcliffe)

Will the hon. Member give the numbers and the distribution?

Mr. Diamond

Ministers without Portfolio rank as Ministers of State. Two Ministers without Portfolio were appointed by the previous Administration. Ministers without Portfolio carried salaries of full departmental Ministers, namely, £5,000. There were two such Ministers appointed at salaries of £5,000 a year each. There were five Ministers of State—two in the Department of Education and Science, one for the Royal Navy, one for the Army and one for the Royal Air Force—at salaries of £4,500 a year, which is intermediate between the salary of a full departmental Minister and that of a Parliamentary Secretary.

Then there were nine at a salary of £3,750 which is the salary of other Ministers of State—two at the Board of Trade, two Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, two for foreign affairs, one Home Office, one Scottish Office and one Welsh Affairs. I think that I made a case that there were 16 Ministers of State appointed by the immediately preceding Administration. They were appointed at salaries relevant to their responsibilities. The flexibility then was greater than it is now. There was no ceiling. They could have been appointed at £10,000 or £20,000. This did not happen because it is not the practice of Prime Ministers, I must tell the hon. Member for Rugby, to behave with the kind of senseless irresponsibility which he described in his speech. They do not behave in that way, and they are not likely to behave in that way, so long as we have a democratic Parliament to assist them in their considerations.

4.0 p.m.

The other point which I should like to make, because I do not know whether the House is fully aware of it, is that the office of Minister of State and the flexibility attaching to his salary is not an invention of ours. When the Conservatives came into office, there were two Ministers of State, and when the Conservatives left office there were 16. They increased the number from two to 16. In the Administration immediately preceding the present one, the present Leader of the Opposition, as Prime Minister, increased the number from eight to 16. He doubled it. We are increasing it, effectively, from 16 to 18.

I say "effectively" because I do not want to mislead the House. There are in fact 19, but the 19th is the Economic Secretary, who, in effect, came into this category before. He is still carrying on the work of Economic Secretary, but is now known as Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs. The proper and honest comparison is that, in the previous Administration, the number rose from two to 16, in our Administration from 16 to 18; in the previous Administration there was no responsible upper limit for salary, in our Administration there is a responsible upper limit; in the previous Administration there were three bands of salary, in our Administration there are the same three bands. Broadly, it is the same pattern.

I am, therefore, bound to say that the Bill which provides for this, and which the hon. Member for Rugby seeks to amend, should stand. I cannot see my way to advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)

Would the hon. Gentleman now kindly answer my hon. Friend's question and give the salaries which Ministers of State in the present Government are receiving, or will receive, as a result of the Bill?

Mr. Diamond

I hope that the House does not think that I am delaying it unduly. I shall be delighted to give any information asked for. Under the present Administration there are two Ministers without Portfolio, as there were in the last Administration, who receive the £5,000 rate.

Perhaps it would be simplest if I quote the current rates, making it perfectly clear that the £5,000 goes up to £8,500 under the proposal which is being accepted by the House. For £5,000 read £8,500. For £4,500 read £7,625 as from 1st April next and for £3,750 read £5,625 as from 1st April next. However, I should be right, and I hope quite clear, if I continue to quote current rates.

The current rates are two Ministers without Portfolio at £5,000 and one, the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence and Minister of Defence for the Army, at £5,000. This, I think, is wholly proper, because, as a result of the amalgamation of the three services, overriding responsibility has been given to the Secretary of State for Defence and his number two, to put it shortly, has much the same responsibility as a full departmental Minister. Therefore, it is right that he should receive an appropriate salary.

There are three Ministers of State receiving a salary of £4,500 a year, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force and the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs, and the Chief Secretary makes four. But if one excludes the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, because he is paralleled by the Economic Secretary, who was not previously classified as a Minister of State, one gets the exact comparison. There are 12 Ministers of State receiving £3,750, which is the other level of salary for Ministers of State—one at the Department of Education and Science, two for foreign affairs, plus two at the Foreign Office, one Commonwealth Relations, one Home Office, one Scottish Office, three at the Board of Trade and one at the Welsh Office.

Sir D. Renton

I am very much obliged to the Chief Secretary for giving this information without notice. We greatly appreciate that. I cannot accept, however, the argument which he has put forward. I can see that the Bill gives less flexibility than has existed over Ministers of State in the past, but we are now reaching conclusions upon this matter and a settlement which, we hope, will last for a good many years. It is the first time since 1830 that Parliament has attempted to do this in a comprehensive way. I suggest that we should do it thoroughly and properly in the way best suited to modern circumstances and taking advantage of the lessons of the past.

There was a time prior to 1780 when, although we had great Prime Ministers, they governed and they mastered Parliament and their own parties with the aid of political patronage. Although great things were achieved in those times, we have passed a long way from those times and we do not want to see any vestige of them return. Granted that, in respect of Ministers of State but not otherwise—as I understand the position—there has been tremendous flexibility over the last 30 years, we should make sure that there is not unnecessary flexibility, to use the Chief Secretary's own words, when arriving at a settlement which will last for many years to come.

What has happened during the last 30 years? After all, when two Ministers without Portfolio were introduced before the war on an experimental basis, this matter did not loom so large. Then, during the war, Sir Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, found it convenient to have a number of Ministers of State, some of them to fulfil duties which could only arise in time of war and, obviously, great flexibility was needed then for that purpose. I think that it is wrong to quote the circumstances which arose then and which have been built upon since as a justification for what we find in Clause 1 of the Bill.

As I understand, what my hon. Friends are aiming at in putting down this Amendment is to ensure that, so far as Ministers of State and the Chief Secretary and the great officers of State are concerned, there shall be no unnecessary flexibility. There will still be some flexibility. The Prime Minister will still be able to pay the full £8,500 a year to a Minister of State who is in the Cabinet, but if a Minister of State is not in the Cabinet he should receive the lesser sum referred to in the latter Amendment, which is £5,250. Surely that is the right way to do this.

I wish to ask a question which, I think, is most material to our discussion. I have no doubt that the Chief Secretary will be given leave to speak again. We are entitled to know whether there was any power in the past to vary salaries downwards while a particular Member of this House, or of another place, still held the appointment. As I understand, that could be done under the Bill and I do not think that it is a desirable situation.

Mr. Chapman

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that if, for example, one of the sinecure offices is used for quite a different purpose with a great diminution in the power of the office the holder should, nevertheless, be paid the same high salary all the time?

Sir D. Renton

I should have thought that there would be a better way of meeting such a situation—perhaps by asking the Minister concerned to resign altogether or to take part in a general reshuffle of the Government—than for him to be faced with a power held in the hands of the Prime Minister, granted by Parliament and contained in an Act of Parliament, for his salary to be reduced.

Mr. Chapman

With respect, I am not talking of individuals having their salaries reduced. I am talking of an office which loses some power in a new formation of Government. If the Lord Privy Seal's Office is to be used for great Cabinet work in one Government and for something different in another there is no reason why the office should carry the same salary.

Sir D. Renton

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are in dispute, though we may be at cross purposes. I am saying that it has been considered broadly right for Parliament to know what powers a Prime Minister is to use when choosing his Government and filling the various posts in it, and, also, that Parliament should have the right to say what salaries should be paid; fixed salaries, not maximum salaries reduceable at will. As I understand, apart from the flexibility with regard to Ministers of State in the past, Ministers have—at any rate, since 1830, if not before—been paid a fixed salary which Parliament has approved.

To the extent that that principle is departed from in Clause 1 and particularly in subsection (2) of that Clause, I say that it is wrong; that it restores to an extent—not to the alarming extent that some hon. Members may think but it could be the thin edge of the wedge—the power of patronage to the Prime Minister. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), whose interventions we always enjoy in any debate, will not get a wrong impression about my hon. Friends and myself, or, indeed, any hon. Member on this side of the House and accuse us of "leg-pulling". We are not "leg-pulling." This is an important constitutional matter on which Parliament should have its say.

Hon. Members opposite do not quite see themselves as others see them. We do see them, we realise the extremely discordant elements that any Labour Prime Minister has to support him in trying to govern. I think it very important that when a Labour Government are introducing a Bill of this kind the powers in the Bill should not appear to be capable of use merely for the purpose of making it easier for a Labour Prime Minister to govern by making deals of one kind or another with those various discordant elements.

After all, we have had three members of the Cabinet who, whether they have rescinded from their principles or not, were keen members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament before being invited to join the Government. I do not think it right for the hon. Member for Northfield to accuse us of "leg-pulling" when we are faced with a situation of that kind.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary (Manchester, Withington)

I wish to support what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Our resentment springs from the growth of patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister. The Chief Secretary said that this may well fix things for all time. We hope that it will remain so. The hon. Gentleman said that one would not anticipate that a Prime Minister would act with gross irresponsibility. We are not suggesting that the present Prime Minister would act in any such way, but our legislation should be tied up in such a way that no one would have the opportunity to act with gross irresponsibility.

A few days ago you, Mr. Speaker, on another occasion, warned the House to be mindful of its reputation outside. That was in respect of a particular aspect of the debate. I think that there is a collective responsibility on the House of Commons to be mindful of its reputation in all forms. I cannot see that the patronage now going into the hands of the Prime Minister can be for the best interests of Parliament.

An appointment to office is not a trading operation invested in one man as might have been the case in the days of Sir Robert Walpole. We have long since left those days. I hope that there will be some acknowledgment by the Chief Secretary that there is substance in what we have said about this subsection. When one considers the whole string of Ministers to be seen and dealt with, and appointed to office, it is apparent that this is not a matter of the personal relationship between the Prime Minister and individuals. It is not a trading operation in the terms of the salaries paid.

I should prefer to see salaries paid to the office and never to the individual. My right hon. and learned Friend said that variations cannot occur if responsibility in a Department lessens. That is not the reason for the Prime Minister to be provided with an excuse to reduce the salaries of individual Ministers. Even at this late hour I think that the Chief Secretary ought to acknowledge that there is substance in what we are saying.

There are elements growing up in the country which resent Parliament as such. There is trash called "Corridors of Power" lying about on the bookstalls. Some individuals would like to divorce themselves entirely from the franchise which we observe in this House and, by patronage and other means, avoid their direct responsibility. Some architects of this new thinking would welcome it if those at the centre did, after all, know best. I think that that should be modified and I regret that some of them have found their way into the ranks of this Government.

Sir M. Redmayne

I join with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in his reproof to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who thought that this Amendment represented a "leg-pull". I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would agree that this is a serious point—I beg the Chief Secretary's pardon, he is not a right hon. Gentleman. He ought to be by virtue of his office. He cannot exercise the power for which the office was originally set up unless he has that rank.

The idea that it may be a "leg-pull" possibly derives from the fact that the previous stages of the Bill were taken on Fridays. The Second Reading, a perfectly good one, was on a Friday and the Committee stage was on another Friday, but a most significant one, for it followed the severe defeat of the Government in two by-elections. Possibly, therefore, some points were not pressed as heavily as they should have been.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) put the case in a cogent way and I find it strange how much more sweetly his voice struck my ears today than it has done on some occasions in the past. To summarise the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends, we object to the complete discretion—and it is complete, and no one can deny that; up or down within a certain maximum—which is given to the Prime Minister in fixing the salaries of Ministers of State, of the Chief Secretary and even more to this flexibility in respect of four famous old sinecure offices if the holders are not in the Cabinet.

There is here a deliberate attempt to downgrade these sinecures, each of which has a great part in history and has been held by a number of famous men. The hon. Member for Northfield spoke about an office losing power. In so far as these great offices of State have power—and we admit that they are sinecures—their power cannot be varied. If, therefore, one is to give them to men who exercise less power, one is certainly downgrading them in an historical sense.

Mr. Chapman

With respect, considering the office of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would say that when it was held in the last Administration—by the Chairman of the Conservative Party—it had a lot less governmental power and duty than it has under the present Administration.

Sir M. Redmayne

The hon. Gentleman underrates the power of the Chairman of the Conservative Party. The fact remains that these sinecure offices have always had their place in the Cabinet and have served to provide for a Prime Minister in his Cabinet a number of those all-rounders who are essential to good government.

Without wishing to make a political point, it is only fair to say that in the present Government the only people who had any knowledge of Cabinet before they took office were the Prime Minister, the then Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales, who, though I respect him, cannot be regarded as being a cogent force at this time. Now that the Government are robbed of the services of their first Foreign Secretary, it is true to say that the Prime Minister is very short of men with experience of how the Cabinet machine works.

By putting in the Bill a Clause by which, at some future time, all these useful offices of State could be downgraded, the Prime Minister does no service to the general interests of good government in this country. In the present Government there remain in the Cabinet the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal, as well as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Paymaster-General is out. He is not in the Cabinet and it is proper that we should ask—I do not believe that this question has been asked so far—what salary is being paid to the Paymaster-General and for what services to the Government. We are not clear what rdôle he plays today, although some of us have been clear of the rôle, in another capacity, he played in the past.

Much more important is that if, in fact, there is power in the Bill to downgrade the Lord President of the Council, that is a blow to the constitutional structure. The Lord President of the Council is an office of no small importance. It is an office which, by the nature of it, is in close contact with the monarchy, and must remain so. Admittedly, it is slightly formalised in its duties, but, as I see it, it is part of the structure of constitutional government which we value and which, I believe, no action of any Government should be allowed to undermine by quietly putting through, in a Bill of this sort, a power by which, at some future date, that office may be lowered in status. Although this point has not been taken to that extent during the passage of the Bill, it is one which should be taken closely into account by the Government.

It is clear that the Bill gives complete freedom to the Prime Minister to pay Ministers of State at whatever rate he pleases. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire said that he could decrease the salary of these Ministers. Equally, up to the limit of £8,500, he can increase it. I am not saying—because one does not wish to say this kind of thing—that there would be the kind of jobbery in which salaries were used as an inducement for loyalty or support of the Government. None the less, in the Bill that power is being injected and at some future date, if not in the term of this Government, that power might be used.

The Chief Secretary pleads that this flexibility is desirable and that there is a precedent for it. In saying that, he is rather stretching the truth. In the Bill there is complete flexibility within the maximum limit. I agree that there was not a maximum limit before, but, equally, the limit was accepted and would never have been exceeded. He went on to say that there were three levels of payment: first, that a Minister of State in the Cabinet received the salary which was due to a Cabinet Minister, and then, at the lower end of the three, there was the salary paid to a Minister of State who was not in the Cabinet, while between there was an intermediate rate of £4,500, and he said that five Ministers of State received that. I question that. I think that the number should have been four.

Following the reorganisation of the Defence Department the three heads of the Services received that rate and the other one, the Minister of Education, who was in the Cabinet, made up the fourth. I do not think that there was a fifth. I see that the Chief Secretary, in that friendly way of his, is telling me that there were two, but the senior Minister of Education received a full Cabinet Minister's salary. I am almost certain that that was the case, but it is not a great point.

I believe that, on the whole, this third rate was a mistake, but I remind the House of the circumstances in which it arose. When the Bill for reorganising the Defence Departments was introduced there was in it the suggestion that because there would be a Defence Minister in complete control of defence, and since there had to be under him three heads of the Services, there should be a differentiation in their salaries. I thought then, as I think now, that it was a mistake.

This comes back to the point of the hon. Member for Northfield—who, I gather from his absence, has become bored with my argument. The responsibilities of the heads of those Services remained the same, although there was a Minister put above them. It would have been a very much better policy had they received the same salary as any head of a Department, whether or not he is in the Cabinet. That disposes of that variation.

4.30 p.m.

There was the other variation by which the salary paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), when he was

a joint Minister of Education, in the Cabinet, was reduced. I do not think that these distinctions are necessary, and I am sure that if one is considering the salaries of Ministers in and out of the Cabinet it is much better that there should be clearly distinct rates for them.

Even admitting, as I have admitted, my view that in these particular respects mistakes were made, I believe that this Government, whose members are so much students of modernisation and method in industry, commerce and government, and who brought in the Machinery of Government Bill, with which we are all too familiar—and then had to admit that it was not quite a Machinery of Government Bill, but might be called something else—would have been wiser if they had not sought to give the Prime Minister these wide powers, but had come down firmly in favour of paying Ministers a salary related precisely to their jobs; those in the Cabinet, or heads of Departments, getting one rate, then what one might call the second tier of Ministers—although I do not altogether agree with the theory of tiers—getting another rate, and those in the third tier getting a third rate.

This subsection, which increases the flexibility, is wholly subject to our disapproval, and I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Lobby.

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

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 200.

Division No. 57.] AYES [4.32 p.m.
Abse, Leo Boston, T. G. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.) Crawshaw, Richard
Alldritt, W. H. Boyden, James Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Armstrong, Ernest Bray, Dr. Jeremy Dalyell, Tam
Atkinson, Norman Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Bacon, Miss Alice Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Davies, Harold (Leek)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury) Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Barnett, Joel Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Baxter, William Buchanan, Richard Delargy, Hugh
Beaney, Alan Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Dell, Edmund
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Diamond, John
Bence, Cyril Carter-Jones, Lewis Dodds, Norman
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Doig, Peter
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Chapman, Donald Donnelly, Desmond
Bessell, Peter Coleman, Donald Driberg, Tom
Blackburn, F. Conlan, Bernard Duffy, A. E. P.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Corbet, Mrs. Freda Dunn, James A.
Boardman, H. Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank Dunnett, Jack
Edelman, Maurice Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Probert, Arthur
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Leadbitter, Ted Randall, Harry
English, Michael Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Rankin, John
Ensor, David Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Redhead, Edward
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Rees, Merlyn
Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Reynolds, G. W.
Fernyhough, E. Lipton, Marcus Rhodes, Geoffrey
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty) Lomas, Kenneth Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Loughlin, Charles Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.) Lubbock, Eric Robertson, John (Paisley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McBride, Neil Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St.Pancras, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McCann, J. Rose, Paul B.
Floud, Bernard MacColl, James Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Foley, Maurice MacDermot, Niall Rowland, Christopher
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) McGuire, Michael Sheldon, Robert
Ford Ben Mclnnes, James Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Freeson, Reginald McKay, Mrs. Margaret Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Garrett, W. E. Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Garrow, A. Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land) Short, Mrs. Renée (W-hampton, N. E.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd Mackie, John (Enfield, E.) Silkin, John (Deptford)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) MacMillan, Malcolm Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) MacPherson, Malcolm Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Small, William
Hale, Leslie Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.) Snow, Julian
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Manuel, Archie Solomons, Henry
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.) Mapp, Charles Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Hannan, William Mason, Roy Spriggs, Leslie
Harper, Joseph Maxwell, Robert Steele, Thomas
Hart, Mrs. Judith Mellish, Robert Stonehouse, John
Hattersley, Roy Mendelson, J. J. Stones, William
Hayman, F. H. Millan, Bruce Summerskill, Dr. Shirley
Hazell, Bert Miller, Dr. M. S. Swain, Thomas
Heffer, Eric S. Milne, Edward (Blyth) Symonds, J. B.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Molloy, William Taverne, Dick
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Monslow, Walter Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Holman, Percy Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Horner, John Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk) Thornton, Ernest
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Murray, Albert Tinn, James
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.) Neal, Harold Tuck, Raphael
Howie, W. Newens, Stan Urwin, T. W.
Hoy, James Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Varley, Eric G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.) Wainwright, Edwin
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Ogden, Eric Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) O'Malley, Brian Wallace, George
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.) Warbey, William
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Orbach, Maurice Watkins, Tudor
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Orme, Stanley Whitlock, William
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Oswald, Thomas Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Owen, Will Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Janner, Sir Barnett Padley, Walter Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Jeger, George (Goole) Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Paget, R. T. Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Winterbottom, R. E.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Pavitt, Laurence Woof, Robert
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Pentland, Norman Zilliacus, K.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Perry, Ernest G.
Kelley, Richard Popplewell, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kenyon, Clifford Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Mr.Lawson and Mr Grey.
Agnew, Commander Sir Peter Braine, Bernard Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Brinton, Sir Tatton Cooper, A. E.
Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Corfield, F. V.
Astor, John Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Costain, A. P.
Baker, W. H. K. Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Batsford, Brian Bruce-Gardyne, J. Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Buchanan-Smith, Alick Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Bell, Ronald Buck, Antony Cunningham, Sir Knox
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Bullus, Sir Eric Curran, Charles
Berkeley, Humphry Buxton, R. C. Dance, James
Berry, Hn. Anthony Campbell, Gordon Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Biffen, John Carlisle, Mark Dean, Paul
Biggs-Davison, John Cary, Sir Robert Digby, Simon Wingfield
Black, Sir Cyril Channon, H. P. G. Dodds-Parker Douglas
Blaker, Peter Chataway, Christopher Eden, Sir John
Bossom, Hn. Clive Chichester-Clark, R. Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Box, Donald Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Errington, Sir Eric Kitson, Timothy St. John-Stevas, Norman
Farr, John Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Scott-Hopkins, James
Fell, Anthony Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sharples, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Litchfield, Capt. John Sinclair, Sir George
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton) Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Llyod, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Speir, Sir Rupert
Gammans, Lady Longbottom, Charles Stanley, Hn. Richard
Gibson-Watt, David Longden, Gilbert Stodart, J. A.
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan Loveys, Walter H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Studholme, Sir Henry
Glover, Sir Douglas McAdden, Sir Stephen Summers, Sir Spencer
Glyn, Sir Richard MacArthur, Ian Talbot, John E.
Goodhew, Victor Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gower, Raymond McMaster, Stanley Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Grant, Anthony McNair-Wilson, Patrick Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Grant-Ferris, R. Maginnis, John E. Teeling, Sir William
Grieve, Percy Mathew, Robert Temple, John M.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Gurden, Harold Meyer, Sir Anthony Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Mills, Peter (Torrington) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Mitchell, David Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston) Monro, Hector Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) More, Jasper Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd) Morgan, W. G. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Harvie Anderson, Miss Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hastings, Stephen Murton, Oscar Vickers, Dame Joan
Hawkins, Paul Nicholls, Sir Harmar Walder, David (High Peak)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Hendry, Forbes Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard Wall, Patrick
Higgins, Terence L. Onslow, Cranley Walters, Dennis
Hiley, Joseph Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Ward, Dame Irene
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Weatherill, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Webster, David
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Page, John (Harrow, W.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hopkins, Alan Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Whitelaw, William
Hordern, Peter Peel, John Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Hornby, Richard Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hunt, John (Bromley) Pitt, Dame Edith Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Pounder, Rafton Wise, A. R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Prior, J. M. L. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Jennings, J. C. Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin Wylie, N. R.
Johnson Smith, G. Renton, Ht. Hn. Sir David Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Younger, Hn. George
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) Ridsdale, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony Roofs, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Kimball, Marcus Royle, Anthony Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Russell, Sir Ronald