HC Deb 10 February 1965 vol 706 cc408-23

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd (Wirral)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, to leave out from "remarriage" to the end of line 36.

This is an Amendment to one of the other Clauses dealing with the pension scheme. I want to make clear in moving it that I remain a strong supporter of the idea of a pension scheme. I urged it upon the Lawrence Committee, subject to the proviso that it should be of modest proportions, and I think that the scheme in the Bill is of modest proportions. Also, the increments diminish as the years go on; after 15 years, they become £24 a year, which I do not think can be considered a very large sum. In view of the frugal and respectable proportions of the scheme, I do not want the fact of my moving the Amendment to be taken as meaning that I am in any way seeking to withdraw my support for it.

We all know the reasons for the scheme. We have had colleagues who have stayed here longer than they wanted to because the alternative was the Members' Fund. Incidentally, I still think that there is an important rôle for the Members' Fund for those who have not done the qualifying period of service for the pension scheme and those who have but have not reached the age to benefit from it. I hope that the Fund will be able to deal with these cases on much more generous lines than has been possible so far.

It is very important that in accepting a pension scheme of this sort we should not seek to make precedents for ourselves or follow other precedents which are not generally applied. Clause 8(3) says: in the case of remarriage the Trustees may, if they think fit, at any time direct that the pension be restored if satisfied that the subsequent marriage has been terminated or that there are exceptional reasons for the payment of the pension notwithstanding the subsistence of that marriage. I do not know any precedents for a provision of that sort, but there may be some. However, I have had my attention drawn to the Army Pensions Warrant, which states in paragraph 222 that the widow's pension shall cease on her remarriage but if she again becomes a widow her pension may be restored in whole or in part provided her pecuniary circumstances are in the opinion of the Army Council sufficient to justify the restoration. I find nothing there to suggest that a pension should be payable during the continuance of a subsequent marriage.

We must be careful about this. This is not something which my ingenuity has detected. It is a matter upon which representations had been made. It has been noticed outside the House that we are in our own pension scheme setting up more generous terms than those which exist in other pension schemes. That is undesirable

Attention has also been drawn to the fact that in this Clause we are giving half the husband's pension to the widow compared with the one-third which is the Service rate. Also, we are providng for the fact that even if a Member marries after he has ceased to be a Member, the widow can benefit. I am told that this is contrary to the position in the case of the Armed Forces, where, in the case of marriage after retirement, there is no question of the widow benefiting.

I trust that the Chief Secretary will look at these points. I do not mention them in the spirit of wishing to detract from what I think are the proper benefits of a pension scheme, but we of all people have to be scrupulously fair to ensure that we are not setting up for ourselves a pension scheme which is more generous than schemes for other departments of the public service.

We ought to do one of two things—either fashion ours in accordance with other schemes, or, if we are to give ourselves more generous terms, we should say at once that we will apply the same terms as quickly as we can to other people in the public service in similar pension schemes.

Sir D. Renton

I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). We must be very careful what we do. I think particularly of the analogy of police officers. I remember moving an Amendment some years ago when we had the Police Pensions Bill before the House. The then Home Secretary was Mr. Chuter Ede, now Lord Chuter-Ede. The effect of my Amendment would have been that if a police officer married after his retirement his widow would get the pension. That seemed to me at the time to be perfectly reasonable and sensible.

However, the Amendment was resisted by the Home Secretary, and my recollection is that he said in a somewhat jocular way that that would make retired policemen very attractive as potential husbands. I do not think that this concession has ever been made since. I am sure that we would not wish to make ourselves, whether we happened to be bachelors or widowers, unusually attractive, more so than others in the public service, as potential husbands.

Mr. Diamond

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me for saying that in the circumstances of the case, were he a bachelor, he could not fail to make a most attractive husband.

Sir D. Renton

I think we could also gain some guidance in this matter by looking outside the sphere of the statute law to what among those who are fortunate enough to have property to dispose of in even a modest marriage settlement has been the practice for centuries and still is.

When a marriage settlement is made there is a widow's portion provided for in one of the Clauses, but my recollection is that that Clause always contains what is known among lawyers as the dum sola provision. In other words, the widow gets the widow's portion only so long as she remains single. Once she ceases to remain single she is cut off from it for ever, for if she becomes a widow again she does not return to the benefit of the widow's portion in her original marriage settlement.

That is a practice which has been approved by custom over many years. In this Clause we are enacting something which is at variance with that practice. So we find that the behaviour of successive Governments and the behaviour of the property-owning classes, who are not altogether to be despised in their habits, argues against what is in the Clause and in favour of my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. So, especially as most hon. Members potentially, though it would be in somewhat sad circumstances, have an interest in the Clause, for the reasons given at the outset I hope that we shall be very careful about what we are doing.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

I am in some sympathy with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), particularly in his illustration of the Royal Warrant for Service pensioners. But the remedy for that anomaly surely is not to deprive the widows of former M.P.s, as apparently the Amendment would do, but to improve the pension rights under the Royal Warrant. I am a trustee of the Members' Fund and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House want to be as generous as we possibly can.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

Perhaps it will save argument if I say at once that if I receive an undertaking from the Government that they will deal with the anomaly in the way suggested by the right hon. Member I will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger

We will soon hear what my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has to say. The trustees of the Members' Fund endeavour to be as generous as they possibly can to the applicants who come before us and the right under this provision to restore a pension is to be subject to the discretion of the trustees, whoever they may be.

Since the trustees will come to know all the circumstances, it would be far better to leave it to their discretion, rather than withdraw that discretion, which is what the Amendment would do. Of course, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we must be very careful not to give the public the impression that we are making things very easy for ourselves and our widows, but the test is what we should do in relation to the circumstances of a former Member or his widow.

The circumstances of an M.P.'s life are not comparable to those of Service pensioners, who enter into fixed contracts and can reasonably look forward to an income for life and to pensions for their widows. An M.P., on the contrary, is at the mercy of the wind, whether it blows left or right. He can be deprived of his employment by the electorate. If he is to be entitled to a pension by virtue of his service in Parliament, we ought to provide as generously as we possibly can for the widow, who might be well advanced in years.

I suggest, therefore, that we leave the discretion to the trustees of the Fund who, probably—I hope that this is the case—will be the same right hon. and hon. Members who are the trustees of the present Members' Fund. As Members of Parliament themselves, I think that they would be the best judges of the circumstances in deciding whether or not to restore a widow's pension.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Diamond

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) for the constructive way in which he moved the Amendment. I recognise that this matter requires explanation, justification and relating to the context of the rest of the Bill. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) put his finger on the key point in saying that this is really a question of discretion of the trustees—whether they should have that discretion or whether it should be withdrawn from them.

Of course, the Government recognise that, in so far as the service of an M.P. is comparable with any other kind of professional service, he should not—and this provision does not make him—receive a pension better than he would receive in a similar walk of life. There is a difficulty about that interpretation, of course, because no other person has a kind of job in exactly the same circumstances as an M.P. In no other job can one, as it were, be thrown out at less than a moment's notice. An election can take place and one can lose one's job overnight. No other job is subject to so many variables which are quite unforeseeable.

In addition, the period of service as an M.P. usually comes at a time of life between certain ages and is usually limited. The average length of service is only 15 years and that is why the Bill provides under the pension scheme heavy additions to the pension for each of the first 15 years' service. There is really no comparable job. It is as lawyers, I understand, would put it, sui generis—it is an exclusive kind of job not readily comparable with any other.

In trying to relate it to similar occupations, the main thing we have to guide us in that respect is the Lawrence Report. I believe that the Government are right in sticking as far as possible to that Report, which takes the matter out of our hands so that no one can say that we, as Members of Parliament, are making specially generous provison for ourselves.

The Lawrence Committee did not dot every "i" and cross every "t". It laid down in general terms, and recommended, what the pension scheme should provide. As one would expect, however, it did not fill in all the details. It is, after all, not for such a body to fill in details. One gets proper actuarial advice and on it bases the scheme in detail. The scheme stands as a whole and the actuarial calculations are based as a whole on everything that is included in the Bill.

This provision is not to be found only in our proposed pension scheme. It is found throughout the Civil Service. It is a standard provision in the public service that what one seeks to do is to provide for the widow of the employee—in this case, the widow of the M.P. Those of us who have served as trustees to the Members' Fund or, as I have, as trustees of the Labour Members' Fund, will appreciate that all sorts of unexpected things happen to the circumstances of former Members and that one must provide for need. That is what we are seeking to do We want to provide for the widow for the whole time she needs that help. That, surely, is what we want to do.

In certain circumstances, of course, the widow will not need help. If she remarries, and her new husband is able to look after her, she does not need help then. But if her second husband is not able to keep her, or dies—there she is, the Member's widow in need. Surely we must look at the individual circumstances. It is not right necessarily to try and lay down the law now and say precisely what is to happen.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman said that in the Civil Service there are precisely similar provisions. In such cases, with whom does the discretion lie?

Mr. Diamond

My immediate answer to that is that I shall have to think about it and, in the course of thinking about it, no doubt I shall recollect.

Sir D. Renton

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it lies within the discretion of anybody within the Civil Service, for example? He spoke of the whole range of the public service. Is it provided as a right, or is there a discretion? Can he go so far as to say that?

Mr. Diamond

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly for his intervention. It was obvious that discretion would have to lie in somebody's hands. I am sorry that I had forgotten it for the moment. It lies in the hands of the Treasury.

The point is that there have to be trustees. What one seeks to do is to provide for one's widow in fair weather and foul. Then, if there are circumstances which are unexpected or unanticipated and even borderline, it is right to leave the trustees to look at the facts and to make a decision having regard to need. This is the way in which these pensions schemes are carried on and I am sure that what my right hon. Friend for Bassetlaw has said is the way the Members' Fund trustees look at the matter. The Government see no earthly reason why the same body of Members' Fund trustees should not be appointed, and this is a matter which will no doubt receive consideration. This is certainly the way in which the trustees of the Labour Fund look at the matter.

However, this provision does not rest on its own. There is the same kind of discretion in a number of other ways in other provisions in the Bill. For example, Clause 8(4) deals with the subject of cohabitation, a difficult subject to deal with. It may be cohabitation of a kind which one wants to take fully into account, and it may not be. One may want to provide a pension in these circumstances and one may not. The cohabitation may cease and one may want to resume the pension. There is a whole host of borderline cases of that kind.

Similarly, in Clause 9(4) there arises the question of the restoration of the widower's pension if his subsequent marriage comes to an end, or if exceptional reasons justify it. There is a similar provision in Clause 10(5) where the payment of a children's pension on remarriage of the surviving parent may come into question if exceptional reasons justify it.

In short, there are four or five similar provisions in the Bill all resting supremely on the hypothesis that what we are seeking to do is to provide for the dependent person, be he widow, widower, or child, and that circumstances may arise which cannot be fully foretold, so that the sensible thing to do is to leave it to the trustees and to give them discretion to act reasonably at the time to see that there is adequate protection.

Mr. Wise

Do the trustees have discretion to vary the amount of the pension? If they restore the pension, do they have discretion to restore the whole of it, or only part of it?

Mr. Diamond

The trustees have power to pay a given pension or not. This is not a hardship fund but a pension scheme, and in a pension scheme the trustees are given discretion as to whether the circumstances justify the payment of the pension.

I can alleviate the conscience of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and quote further precedents, for he is particularly concerned, as I am, that this should not be thought to be a particularly generous scheme for Members of Parliament—as it is not. I am told that a Service widow who remarries may be granted a pension at the discretion of the Defence Council if her second husband dies and she is in need. I am told that the judges have a scheme, not exactly the same, but broadly similar to what is here proposed. The precedents are well established and this follows the practice which we ourselves follow in the House in terms of the Members' Fund and the Labour Members' Fund. The discretion is sensible and I hope that the House will allow the Bill to go through in its present form.

Mr. Wise

The difference is that in this case a pension can be paid to a widow while her second husband is still alive. That does not happen in the other circumstances.

Mr. Diamond

Yes, it is exactly comparable. The thing to cotton on to is not the marital status, but the question of need. It is possible for a Member's widow to have remarried and to be in need while her second husband is alive. That second husband may suffer a dreadful illness, for example. The lady may no longer be in her first flush of youth and her husband may have a severe illness and be completely unable to earn a living. If there are no other resources, she may be in need. I would have said that it would be our wish that such a widow should be taken care of so far as we can reasonably provide, within the actuarial facts of the scheme. I hope that that will satisfy the House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has told us about the Civil Service generally is a fact, and that removes one of my doubts, although whether the Treasury will always be as soft-hearted in carrying out its trusteeship as the hon. Gentleman himself I am not so certain.

However, what of the Armed Forces? I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment unless I am satisfied that it is the case that the Armed Forces have the same sort of benefit. I have the Army Pensions Warrant before me and I see no trace in that of the possible concession to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Does the Army Council have discretion or under the new régime has the Defence Council? And what happens in the Navy and the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Diamond

The best answer I can give is that the Services' provision is not yet published in its final form. It will probably be Article 222 and when it is published in its final form the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there is reasonable precedent and a reasonable similarity to what we are doing here. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious that we should not appear to be exceptionally generous to ourselves, and I can assure him that that is the case.

Sir D. Renton

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again; I am very unhappy about this position. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has raised the question of the Armed Forces and the hon. Gentleman has replied, but we have not had a reply about the police. The Chief Secretary said that what is in the Clause applies throughout the whole range of the public service, but I would wish to be assured that the police now have a provision—they did not have it before—on the lines of the Clause. I would feel very unhappy about seeking a privilege for a widow of mine which the widow of a policeman did not have.

The hon. Gentleman has said that we must be treated as something quite different from all other people. His words were that we were not comparable with those in any other job. Surely that makes it all the more important that we should not for ourselves and our families seek any kind of privilege which others may not have. It was not consistent for the hon. Gentleman to say that, on the one hand, we were not like anybody else and, on the other, that what we were giving to ourselves was standard practice throughout the publc service. We must be careful to ensure that what we provide for ourselves is completely proper and not contrary to what has been done in, at any rate, some sectors.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

Surely the right hon. and learned Member's argument deals, not with denying this right to widows of ex-M.P.s, but to improving the situation, if it needs improving, of police pensioners. Under the Members' scheme, we have the power to do more or less what we like concerning the widows of ex-M.P.s. The only proviso is that they must show need. I presume—and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)

Order. This is becoming a Committee debate.

Mr. Bellenger

I do not want to turn it into a Committee debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked leave to address the House again. I do not propose to speak as long as he did, otherwise I should have to ask for leave, too.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman rose simply to intervene on a point of clarification.

Mr. Bellenger

I am coming to the end of my intervention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that under the Members' scheme we have the right to do more or less what we like? Does not subsection (3) make the same sort of provision?

Sir D. Renton

I do not know whether I am allowed to answer the right hon. Gentleman, but I should hate to base any future action on the present Mem- bers' scheme, which most of us have regarded as very unsatisfactory for many years.

Mr. Diamond

I gather that it is the wish of the Opposition that I should intervene once more. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I should like to make one or two more remarks.

The policemen's scheme is not comparable. That provides that if a policeman remarries after he has retired the second wife is not eligible for a pension in the event of widowhood. I hope that what I said did not seem to indicate that every scheme in the public service was of an identical kind. I could not possibly allege that. There is a vast number of schemes, each of which has its own detailed regulations. All that I am saying about this discretion in relation to widows is that it is repeated in the Civil Service scheme and other schemes. Broadly, this is a similar scheme to that of the judges' scheme.

However, one can pick out a number of other schemes which provide for different benefits and in which one pays for what one gets. Hon. and right hon. Members must not forget that this is a question of marrying benefits to payments. The payments are laid down, and, by and large, they should produce the benefits which we have in mind. Of course, it is possible to devise a scheme which pays benefits of much less value and, therefore, which may cost less in contributions by both employee and employer, or, in our case, by the Exchequer and the Members. Broadly, we must take account of both benefits and costs.

There are plenty of precedents for treating the matter in this way. I repeat that a Member of Parliament is not easily comparable with people in any other walk of life. But this is not a new invention. It follows solid and widespread precedent, and I should have thought that the discretion laid down in the Bill was wise.

Sir M. Redmayne

The Chief Secretary has dealt with this point with great sympathy and patience. It seems to me that the weakness of what he says lies in his statement that what we are considering is similar to precedent. But the precedents are not precise. That is the great difficulty.

I do not share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) about the Members' Fund. I think that the trustees of that Fund have done a very good job with great sympathy and have paid great care to every case.

Sir D. Renton

indicated assent.

Sir M. Redmayne

I see that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees.

Sir D. Renton

Yes. I was not criticising the trustees.

Sir M. Redmayne

I must have misunderstood my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Chief Secretary says with absolute justice that in the Civil Service the same conditions apply because the Treasury acts as trustee and in the Armed Forces the same conditions apply because the Defence Council acts as trustee. However, we all know and must admit that the care, sympathy and personal knowledge which would be applied by the trustees of our own fund must be better than that applied by the Treasury and Defence Council. That is no disrespect to those bodies. All hon. Members will have had experience of cases which they have taken up on behalf of constituents and will know how infernally difficult it is to get a satisfactory answer.

Therefore, although the Chief Secretary has done his best to make out his case, I think that we must be particularly careful to ensure that there is precise justice between the way in which we treat ourselves or our widows and the way in which the widows of men in other services are treated. To mark the point, and while accepting fully that the Chief Secretary has made the best case

he can, I think that we should divide on the Amendment.

Sir R. Cary

Arising from what was said by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), may I, as a trustee of the Members' Fund for some years, say that we cannot do more or less what we like. The Members' Fund is a benevolent fund. We have a discretionary power in operating it. We can deal with cases of hardship. But in framing the Fund the House put leading strings on us.

It is a little misleading of the right hon. Gentleman to say that we can do more or less what we like for the widow of a Member. We have some flexibility, but we are limited to that. We can deal with certain cases of express hardship, but no more.

Mr. Bellenger

I used, perhaps, a rather indiscreet expression, but, nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will know that under the Act under which we operate we can use considerable discretion. That is all I am asking right hon. and hon. Members opposite to allow the trustees of this fund to do.

Mr. Wise

We are grateful to the Chief Secretary for his very careful and courteous answers, but I think that we are entitled to a little more clarification because in some respects they were slightly contradictory.

We should get it on record that what is in subsection (3) is not standard practice throughout the public service but is of our own invention. May we agree on that?

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

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 201.

Division No. 58.] AYES [5.39 p.m.
Abse, Leo Bessell, Peter Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Bishop, E.S. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Alldritt, W. H. Blackburn, F. Carter-Jones, Lewis
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Blenkinsop, Arthur Chapman, Donald
Armstrong, Ernest Boardman, H. Coleman, Donald
Atkinson, Norman Boston, T.G. Conlan, Bernard
Bacon, Miss Alice Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.) Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Boyden, James Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Barnett, Joel Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Baxter, William Bray, Dr. Jeremy Crawshaw, Richard
Beaney, Alan Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Bence, Cyril Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury) Dalyell, Tam
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Bennett. J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Buchanan, Richard Davies, Harold (Leek)
Davies, Ifor (Cower) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Perry, Ernest G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Popplewell, Ernest
Delargy, Hugh Jones, Dan (Burnley) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Dell, Edmund Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Probert, Arthur
Diamond, John Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Dodds, Norman Kelley, Richard Randall, Harry
Doig, Peter Kenyon, Clifford Rankin, John
Driberg, Tom Kerr, Dr. David (W'Worth, Central) Redhead, Edward
Duffy, A. E. P. Lawson, George Rees, Merlyn
Dunnett, Jack Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Reynolds, G. W.
Edelman, Maurice Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Richard, Ivor
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
English, Michael Lipton, Marcus Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Ennals, David Lomas, Kenneth Robertson, John (Paisley)
Ensor, David Loughlin, Charles Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St.Pancras, N.)
Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley) Lubbock, Eric Rose, Paul B.
Fernyhough, E. McBride, Neil Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty) McCann, J. Rowland, Christopher
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.) MacDermot, Niall Sheldon, Robert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McGuire, Michael Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston) Mclnnes, James Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Floud, Bernard McKay, Mrs. Margaret Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Foley, Maurice Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale) Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land) Silkin, John (Deptford)
Ford, Ben Mackie, John (Enfield, E.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Freeson, Reginald MacMillan, Malcolm Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Garrett, W. E. MacPherson, Malcolm Small, William
Garrow, A. Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Snow, Julian
Grey, Charles Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Solomons, Henry
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Manuel, Archie Spriggs, Leslie
Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange) Mapp, Charles Steele, Thomas
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mason, Roy Stonehouse, John
Hale, Leslie Maxwell, Robert Stones, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mellish, Robert Summerskill, Dr. Shirley
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mendelson, J. J. Swain, Thomas
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.) Millan, Bruce Symonds, J. B.
Hannan, William Miller, Dr. M. S. Taverne, Dick
Harper, Joseph Milne, Edward (Blyth) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hart, Mrs. Judith Molloy, William Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Hattersley, Roy Monslow, Walter Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hayman, F. H. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Thornton, Ernest
Hazell, Bert Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Tinn, James
Heffer, Eric S. Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk) Tuck, Raphael
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Murray, Albert Urwin, T. W.
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Neal, Harold Varley, Eric G.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Newens, Stan Wainwright, Edwin
Holman, Percy Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Walden, Brian(All Saints)
Horner, John Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby,S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Norwood, Christopher Wallace, George
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Ogden, Eric Warbey, William
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.) O'Malley, Brian Watkins, Tudor
Howie, W. Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.) Whitlock, William
Hoy, James Orbach, Maurice Wilkins, W. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Orme, Stanley Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oswald, Thomas Williams, Mrs. Shirley(Hitchin)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) Owen, Will Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) Padley, Walter Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Paget, R. T. Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Woof, Robert
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Janner, Sir Barnett Pavitt, Laurence Zilliacus, K.
Jeger, George (Goole) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Pentland, Norman TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mrs. Slater and Mr. Fitch.
NOES
Agnew, Commander Sir Peter Berry, Hn. Anthony Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Biffen, John Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Biggs-Davison, John Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Astor, John Black, Sir Cyril Buck, Antony
Atkins, Humphrey Blaker, Peter Bullus, Sir Eric
Baker, W. H. K. Bossom, Hn. Clive Buxton, R. C.
Barlow, Sir John Box, Donald Campbell, Gordon
Batsford, Brian Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J. Carlisle, Mark
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Channon, H. P. G.
Bell, Ronald Braine, Bernard Chataway, Christopher
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Brinton, Sir Tatton Chichester-Clark, R.
Berkeley, Humphry Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hordern, Peter Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Cooper, A. E. Hornby, Richard Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Cordle, John Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Corfield, F. V. Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Costain, A. P. Hunt, John (Bromley) Ridsdale, Julian
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hutchison, Michael Clark Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Roots, William
Cunningham, Sir Knox Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Royle, Anthony
Curran, Charles Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Russell, Sir Ronald
Dance, James Johnson Smith, G. Scott-Hopkins, James
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr) Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) Sharples, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kershaw, Anthony Shepherd, William
Dean, Paul Kilfedder, James A. Sinclair, Sir George
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kimball, Marcus Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Spearman, Sir Alexander
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Kitson, Timothy Stanley, Hn. Richard
Eden, Sir John Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stodart, J. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Emery, Peter Litchfield, Capt. John Studholme, Sir Henry
Errington, Sir Eric Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Summers, Sir Spencer
Farr, John Longbottom, Charles Talbot, John E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Loveys, walter H. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) McAdden, Sir Stephen Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Gammans, Lady MacArthur, Ian Teeling, Sir William
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan McLaren, Martin Temple, John M.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Glover, Sir Douglas McMaster, Stanley Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Glyn, Sir Richard McNair-Wilson, Patrick Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)
Goodhew, Victor Maginnis, John E. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter
Gower, Raymond Mathew, Robert Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Grant, Anthony Maude, Angus Tweedsmuir, Lady
Grant-Ferris, R. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Grieve, Percy Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Meyer, Sir Anthony Vickers, Dame Joan
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Walder, David (High Peak)
Gurden, Harold Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Mitchell, David Wall, Patrick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Monro, Hector Walters, Dennis
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury) More, Jasper Ward, Dame Irene
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Morgan, W. G. Weatherill, Bernard
Harris, Reader (Heston) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Webster, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Murton, Oscar Wells, John (Maidstone)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd,) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Whitelaw, William
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Harvie Anderson, Miss Onslow, Cranley wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hastings, Stephen Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hawkins, Paul Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian wise, A. R.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward page, John (Harrow, W.) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Higgins, Terence L. page, R. Graham (Crosby) Woodnutt, Mark
Hiley, Joseph Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Wylie, N. R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) peel, John Younger, Hn. George
Hirst, Geoffrey Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Pounder, Rafton TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hopkins, Alan Prior, J. M. L. Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W Elliott.