§ Sir John Hobson (Warwick and Leamington)
I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 5, at the end to insert:( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section and of section 5 of this Act the Commissioner shall have power to carry out any investigations directed by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament and shall report thereon to both Houses as soon as his investigation has been completed.
§ Mr. Speaker
With this Amendment, it will be convenient to take also 1361 Amendment No. 39, in Clause 5, page 4, line 4, at end insert:'unless the Minister responsible for the department or other authority concerned authorises such an investigation to be made'.
§ Sir J Hobson
The object of the Amendment is to give a useful power to the Parliamentary Commissioner to be employed for special purposes and on special occasions which, we may find unhappily, are outside the scope of the Bill.
We know all too well that there are many occasions when public interest and the pressure of Parliamentary opinion demands an inquiry. The only existing safeguard is in the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, which is a very heavy-handed hammer and which, the recent excellent Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Justice Salmon has said, should be used only on the rarest occasions and on occasions of great public anxiety and interest.
Between, therefore, the provisions of the Bill as it stands and the circumstances in which the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, may be employed, there is a very wide gap. It is, therefore, in view of the new Parliamentary Commissioner, with his knowledge and experience of investigations, with his staff and with his ability to conduct investigations of this sort, that we have thought it right to give a little latitude to the Bill.
The Government constantly say that we must proceed cautiously and that the Commissioner cannot be allowed to jump into the wide seas of investigation but must be narrowly constricted. They have succeeded fairly successfully in ensuring that he does very little indeed. One could have drawn a Bill in the form that it gave a great number of powers which are to be operated only when the Government have introduced an Order in Council, but they have not even done that. They have given no elasticity of any kind to allow wider or more varied investigations than within the strict and narrow limits of the Bill.
On occasion, therefore, perhaps not very regularly, the Amendment might well provide a useful provision. It is drafted on the basis that such a special inquiry should be conducted only on the basis of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This is on the basis that legislation is being altered.
1362 It is right when there is delegated legislation, when there are extended powers which have not already been given by Parliament, that there should be affirmative Resolutions of both Houses. It also means in substance that the Commissioner would never be able to undertake a special inquiry under the Clause, unless the Government were in agreement to it, because we proceed on the basis that the Government will be in control of at least one House for the time being. Therefore, there cannot be an inquiry under the 1921 Act unless the Government agree to it. It is equally obvious that under this proposal it would be impossible, without the consent of the Government, for such a special inquiry to be embarked upon by the Ombudsman.
Moreover, there are those who think that the Commissioner may be the beginning of a very important development in our Constitution and in the protection of citizens. It might well be useful to have this opportunity to experiment in the extension of his powers. The proposal gives some flexibility, left under the control of the Government. I therefore commend it to the House.
§ Mr. Hale
I confess that at first sight this seems to me to be an excellent proposal. I should like to hear the Government's reply, because I do not claim any expertise in this matter. I can appreciate that one of the arguments which may be advanced against the proposal is that the Commissioner will not have the powers to summon witnesses, and so on, which a tribunal of inquiry may have. That itself is an excellent recommendation. There have been many cases where an inquiry by a trusted individual on documents, with a report that no further inquiry was necessary, might have been a very great improvement upon some of the tragedies that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act has perpetrated.
The House is familiar with the history of that Act. It was conceived by this House in a moment of hystetria on an allegation which was not true. It was conceived after someone had demanded an inquiry into alleged misdoings in the sale of munitions, which proved extremely attractive material for the Press but in respect of which no single reliable witness ever came forward. If I remember, the 1363 Member of the House who raised the matter, and who was an old friend of mine, did not really attempt effectively to pursue the matter once the allegation had been made.
I do not want to recall the whole history of these things. The House is one of the worst tribunals in the world when it gets excited. I was involved—not personally, but professionally involved as legal adviser—in the Lynskey Tribunal affecting Mr. Belcher. I thought that the whole thing was a tragedy. No one felt that any added purity to public life was produced as a result of it. A lot of ridiculous and wholly unsupported allegations were made. I took some part in suppressing many of these things by extremely improper means, which I will not now detail to the House.
The House itself suffered when allegations were made against one of its Members, which were investigated by a High Court judge, who conducted a searching inquiry, who published a detailed report, and who played in that respect the sort of part the Commissioner could play.
If the Commissioner wins public confidence and respect, as I expect and hope he will, though that I think the Bill will saddle him with real difficulties which will not make it easy for him to proceed with speed and always completely to the public satisfaction, it might almost become an accepted practice that, by resolution of both Houses, where allegations are made which involve the decencies of public life, such an official could immediately investigate. He might say almost immediately, "This is another of those hysterical allegations which are made". He might say, "I must inquire further". He might issue a report which I concede might necessitate a further inquiry—under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, or a judicial inquiry, or by process of the courts. That would be inevitable.
My only doubt about the Amendment is whether it is necessary, because I should have thought that, if both Houses passed a resolution of this kind, they could in that resolution give the power and the directions. I am not sure of that. On that matter the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is much more likely to be right than I am. It may be that we should 1364 have to pass a special, tiny, formal Act of Parliament in each case. If this proposal were embodied in the Bill, it would save that procedure. It would save the rather unsavoury type of debate that might arise on that procedure.
I hope that we shall never need to use these powers. I can visualise occasions on which the leader of any Government might be very grateful to have them. I am tempted to say this, and I say it with reticence and reserve, because I never took part in any speeches or talk about one of the last incidents which worried the House for some time. If the distinguished Prime Minister who was in office at the time that certain complaints were made against security, which I think in the end were proved to be manifestly untrue but in respect of which there was some gossip, some associations, some events, had had the power to say, "We will move a Resolution of both Houses that the Parliamentary Commissioner, who enjoys our confidence, shall look into this and tell us whether it might go further", one of the most unpleasant events in our Parliamentary lives—there are several of us who are ashamed of this event—might have been avoided.
What I have reason to say emphatically is that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act is hopelessly and wickedly unsatisfactory. There is always something to be said for the private, quiet, preliminary inquiry by a person trusted and independent. There is nothing to be said for the perversion of the rules of evidence and justice over these issues, for roving questions on subjects one has never been warned about, for witnesses being brought whom one has been promised will not be brought, for a man's wife being fetched from her kitchen to testify against her husband who was a distinguished Minister of the Crown. Yes, indeed; that happened to John Belcher after I had been personally promised that it would not be done. Mrs. Belcher was fetched from 20 miles away and shoved hysterical into the box. Of course I must not pursue this. Of course I must not say that her mental health was affected. Of course I must not say that, and I will not. But some of us remember. These were evil things that were happening.
I have three times been involved in inquiries under the Tribunals of Inquiry 1365 Act. I can say now after all these years that one of them seemed to be a put-up job from the start. However, our trusted method; of procedure should not be lightly abandoned. That is why I commend to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the suggestion that we might take advantage of this opportunity to do something which imposes no obligation upon anyone but which provides an additional, and I think fruitful, method of dealing with exceptional problems, and dealing with them in a manner which might give confidence to the public.
§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
The Bill gives the Commissioner very wide powers. They are much wider than the powers which can be given by a Minister without special assistance from this House for the purpose of inquiring into some matter. But they are not so wide as the powers given under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I think that there is plenty of room for an inquiry to be held where the inquirer has greater powers than what might be called the ordinary run of the mill powers, but less formidable powers than those given under the Act. Under the Bill, the Commissioner is prevented, by Clause 3, from inquiring into matters within the responsibility of certain Departments and, by Clause 5, from inquiring into certain matters within those other Departments which he can look into. What this Amendment does is to allow both houses of Parliament together by Resolution to remove the particular restrictions and so enable the Parliamentary Commissioner to hold just such a half-way house inquiry. I think that that would be very helpful, and I support the Amendment warmly.
Let it be said that the Amendment is only permissive. It will enable Parliament to permit this to occur, but it will not in any sense compel the Commissioner to take action. It does not put the Commissioner into an awkward position.
The Amendment standing in my name goes less far than that proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). My Amendment proposes to make an addition to subsection (3) of Clause 5, which provides:Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation under this Act in respect 1366 of any such action or matter as is described in Schedule 3 to this Act.Schedule 3 set out a number of matters which it is generally agreed ought not to be inquired into.
What my Amendment suggests is that we should add to that the words:unless the Minister responsible for the Department or other authority concerned authorises such an investigation to be made".In other words, there may be cases where the Minister himself would be glad to use the machinery of the Commissioner. Under the Bill as it is now drafted, he is prevented from doing so. This will enable him, in effect, to waive the objection laid down by the Bill. It seems to me to be a moderate and sensible step which could easily be taken.
My Amendment is not an alternative to that moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. It is in addition to it. Therefore, I support both Amendments, and I hope that both may be made to the Bill.
§ Mr. MacDermot
The official Opposition Amendment is similar to one which we discussed in Committee. It was agreed then that we were discussing it against the background of the very rigid provisions which existed then and still exist in relation to Schedule 3, because, as the Bill stands at the moment, the exclusions in Schedule 3 are absolute exclusions, and it would only be possible for the Parliamentary Commissioner to examine cases falling within any of the categories in Schedule 3 if another Act of Parliament were passed enabling him to do that.
As hon. Members will be aware, in response to requests made in Committee, we have put down an Amendment that we shall reach in a few moments in which we propose to take power to amend Schedule 3 by Order in Council. If it is found both desirable and practicable to extend the scope of the Commissioner's powers to include any of the matters at present excluded by Schedule 3, we will be able to do that by the Order in Council procedure, subject to a Resolution of this House. I respectfully suggest that that alters the need for any Amendment such as is now proposed.
The official Opposition Amendment is an extremely far-reaching one. I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite 1367 realise just how far-reaching it is. Under its terms, one would introduce a concept which is alien to the whole structure of the Bill, because it would mean that there would be no limit to the kinds of matters which could be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner by a Resolution of both Houses. For example, it is not limited to topics where the action to be investigated is action on behalf of the Crown. At the moment, that limitation is found in Clause 5, and it is excluded by the words of the Amendment. It would be possible for the House to order the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate actions of local authorities, of nationalised industries and, indeed, of private companies—
§ Mr. MacDermot
Effectively, it would be order. If there was a Resolution of both Houses that the Commissioner should carry out an investigation into some particular topic, from a practical point of view I suggest that this would have the effect of negating his discretion as to whether or not he investigated that matter. It would operate as an instruction to the Commissioner, and it could be an instruction to investigate the affairs of a private company. That would be a wide-ranging tribunal procedure with a vengeance.
Schedule 2 would be completely overridden. There would not be the limitation which is provided by the requirement that there should be a complaint by an individual or a corporate body, which is the origin of the proceedings. That would go. It would not need a complaint by an individual and it would not even require that someone should be complaining of an injustice. Even if he were complaining of an injustice, it would not require his consent to the proceedings. That is an important safeguard which we have at the moment. The requirement that the target of the Commissioner's investigation should be maladministration would go, because that is in Clause 5. He could investigate anything, including discretionary decisions. He would be able to review decisions of the courts; he could be called upon to act as a court of appeal against the courts, because that limitation 1368 is in Clause 5. The time limits would go, together with all the exceptions in Schedule 3.
Perhaps I have said enough to show that this is an extraordinarily widely drafted Amendment and, in effect, would be a recipe for a universal inquisitorial procedure.
Whatever may be the faults of our present tribunals of inquiry system, we should not set up a kind of second class inquiries procedure without proper safeguards built into it. We have now the Report of the Salmon Committee, which has made important recommendations about the Tribunals and Inquiries Act procedure, but nothing of that kind is contained in the Amendment.
I pass over the fact that it talks in terms of a resolution of both Houses, when I think that we are agreed that, operatively, the Parliamentary Commissioner will be an officer working to this House.
The Amendment which we are discussing with—
§ Mr. Hale
I remember that one of the arguments which impressed us on the Police Commission when talking about a national force was that if a Government behaved so badly in relation to a national force as people said in talking about the S.S., that Government could do anything, anyhow. If a Government and a House of Lords were so bad and so grossly incompetent that both Houses passed Addresses demanding an investigation into something which was manifestly improper under circumstances which were highly undesirable, by that time the Commissioner probably would have been hanging from a lamp post, if lamp posts still existed. Surely that is advancing into the realms of romance.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MacDermot
I am obliged for what I take to be the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). For a moment, earlier, I thought that he was urging that we should accept the Opposition Amendment.
If I might turn to the second Amendment which we are discussing, that of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), it does not go nearly as far and is limited to giving an additional power to the Commissioner to 1369 investigate what might be called Schedule 3 cases—the cases in the excluded categories—if the Minister of the Department or other authority concerned consents to the investigation. On the face of it, this is an attractive proposal, because one can say, "What possible harm is there in it? It would be a useful additional power. The Minister might welcome this kind of investigation procedure, and he need never consent to it unless he wants to."
The answer is that one must realise what in practice would be the result of passing a provision of this kind. It would mean that every dissatisfied complainant —we all know from our experience as Members of Parliament that there are many persistent dissatisfied complainants, and sometimes their persistence varies in inverse ratio to our own judgment of the substance of their complaints—would know of the existence of the power and would be pressing his Member of Parliament to raise the matter in the House, saying, "Why do you not press the Minister to consent to this investigation?" No doubt it would be raised in the House at Question time and in Adjournment debates.
Often the Minister's reason for not wanting an investigation would be the knowledge that, if he allowed a particular case to be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, he would be opening the door to a whole new procedure of a vast number of similar complaints being referred as well. As we know, it is our practice in Government in these matters to try and establish precedents and to operate on principle in accordance with precedent. I suggest that what is being argued as the very special case would not in practice be the very special case. Each one would open the door to a new class of cases.
If this is what we want, the answer is that our new Amendment will provide the means to permit it. If it is found in practice that there is no reason why a certain class of Schedule 3 cases should not be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, we will be able to make an Order, assuming that the House sees fit to pass the Amendment which we shall be considering shortly. For those reasons, I would advise the House not to accept either of the Amendments.
§ Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)
I find the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments totally unconvincing. It was not perhaps a great surprise that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) succeeded in demolishing them totally by his intervention. It came as a surprise that the hon. Gentleman succeeded in doing so in two short sentences. It sometimes takes a little longer for him to deploy arguments which are so devastating in character.
The fact is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown a wild mistrust of Parliament. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that Parliament will behave in such an irresponsible way as to call upon the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate matters inappropriate to him? That view would seem to be something of an insult to Parliament. It is absurd that the Parliamentary Commissioner cannot be called upon by Parliament to investigate anything that Parliament wants.
In setting up the Parliamentary Commissioner, we are indulging in a great experiment. We shall be seeing the utility of this new office and will no doubt see it expand and become more and more useful. It may well be that, in due course, Parliament may think it appropriate to entrust the Parliamentary Commissioner with the investigation of a local government matter. Why not? It might be entirely appropriate that, after he has dug himself in with the full range of activities flowing from the Bill, Parliament may well wish to experiment and allow him, perhaps commission him, specifically to investigate some local government scandal or allegation of maladministration. It is this sort of matter we would wish to have referred to him.
§ Mr. Weitzman
Why is it necessary to have the Amendment? If Parliament passes a Resolution asking the Parliamentary Commissioner to do something, why is it necessary to put it in an Act? Surely it could be done adequately by Resolution.
§ Mr. Buck
This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. My view is that if the Parliamentary Commissioner were to undertake matters other than those in the Bill, he would 1371 be acting ultra vires. What would be required would be a short Act of Parliament. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not be authorised merely by Resolution of both Houses to undertake an investigation outside the ambit of the Bill. But perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary will indicate whether that view of the law is correct or not rather than that I should have the invidious task of correcting the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) on a point of law.
As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not investigate a matter which was merely put forward by Resolution of both Houses. It could not be done except by Act of Parliament. It is absurd that Parliament cannot refer a specific matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner. As the office evolves and grows, as we see the way it becomes an effective instrument for good, why should we not, as Members of Parliament, by Resolution of both Houses, refer matters to the Parliamentary Commissioner which are outside the ambit of the Schedule—for example, a specific experiment such as a local government scandal which would be entirely appropriate? This is full justification of the Amendment.
§ Mr. Weitzman
I do not know how it can be suggested that, if a Resolution passed by Parliament authorises the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate a matter, it can possibly be said to be ultra vires.
§ Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)
I have listened carefully and am persuaded by the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary on what is clearly a constitutional matter. There is clearly a case for reforming the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, but that is a different matter from what we are discussing in this Bill and the Amendment. It seems wrong that Parliament should introduce by sidewind under another Measure a power as wide as that.
The answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is surely that Parliament must be very careful not to give power for things to be done in its name, because one never knows what the future complexion of Parliament may be. 1372 I agree that it is hardly likely that a future Parliament would resort to measures which none of us here would approve of but nevertheless it remains our duty to make its task very hard if such a Parliament came about. It is surely a constitutional principle of this House that we give no more power than is necessary for the immediate purpose in mind. It is a wise principle and the Financial Secretary is absolutely right.
§ Sir J. Hobson
In reply to hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) I would say that surely a Resolution of both Houses could not give to the Parliamentary Commissioner any powers beyond what he has and therefore he could not, without the Bill, use any of the powers to be provided by the Bill merely because a Resolution of both Houses asked him to do so. That is surely plain law. Unless this is expressly put in an Amendment like this, the powers available under Clauses 7, 8 and 9—provisions about defamation and other matters which are of great importance—would not be attracted to an inquiry which was called for without the provisions of the Bill —an inquiry that the Parliamentary Commissioner conducted at the behest of Parliament.
§ Mr. Weitzman
Supposing Parliament passed a Resolution that the Parliamentary Commissioner be asked to investigate a certain matter and gave him certain powers with regard to that inquiry. How could that be ultra vires?
§ Sir J. Hobson
It is a new doctrine that, by Resolution of both Houses, we can confer power on anyone. I am sure that is wrong. I do not want to delay the House. We have had a good debate. I agree in principle with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—that one wants to be careful about what powers one is conferring and I wish that the Government would take that much more to heart and themselves be more careful about the delegated legislation that they are pouring through the House at present with very little Parliamentary control.
The point about the Amendment is that it would strengthen possible Parliamentary control. It would not be possible to have an inquiry by the Parliamentary 1373 Commissioner under the Amendment without a Resolution of both Houses. It is all very well the Financial Secretary saying, "What a terrible thing—there is no complainant". The two Houses of Parliament are the complainants. What better complainants are there? He says that it is terrible that there are no limits on what the Parliamentary Commissioner would be enabled to inquire into. But I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). We have to rely a little on the sense of the two Houses.
One cannot imagine them investigating the proceedings of a court of law and seeing whether an appeal decision to the court ought to be reversed. This is a tightly drawn Bill with great restrictions on the matters to be investigated. While I acknowledge the slight additional
|Division No. 250.]
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
|Gresham Cooke, R.
|Alason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
|Baker, W. H. K.
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
|Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
|Page, John (Harrow, W.)
|Black, Sir Cyril
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
|Pink, R. Bonner
|Brinton, Sir Tatton
|Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
|Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
|Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)
|Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
|Bullus, Sir Eric
|Howell, David (Guildford)
|Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
|Hutchison, Michael Clark
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
|Sinclair, Sir George
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
|Summers, Sir Spencer
|Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
|McAdden, Sir Stephen
|Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
|Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
|Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
|Vickers, Dame Joan
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
|Ward, Dame Irene
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)
|Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
|Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
|Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
|Glover, Sir Douglas
|Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
|Glyn, Sir Richard
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
|Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
|Wylie N. R.
|Nabarro, Sir Gerald
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Mr. Eyre and Mr. Kitson.
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
|Cant, R. B.
|Davies, Harold (Leek)
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
|Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
|Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
|Concannon, J. D.
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda
|Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
|Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
§ loosening that there will be by the ability to remove things from the categories in Schedule 3, Schedule 3 is not the only restriction that the Bill imposes on the capacity of the Parliamentary Commissioner to conduct inquiries.
We cannot foresee what circumstances may appear and what real necessity there may be to employ the great skill, knowledge and experience and staff of the Parliamentary Commissioner in having an inquiry which both Houses think is necessary. I am content to rely on both Houses and therefore I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 170.
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
|Reynolds, G. W.
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
|Robertson, John (Paisley)
|Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
|Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'tow, E.)
|Gordon Walter, Rt. Hn. P. C.
|Mackintosh, John P.
|Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
|Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William
|Grey, Charles (Durham)
|McNamara, J. Kevin
|Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
|Shore, Peter (Stepney)
|Hamiton, James (Bothwell)
|Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
|Silkin Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
|Silverman, Julius (Aston)
|Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
|Hilton, W. S.
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)
|Miltchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
|Steel, David (Roxburgh)
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
|Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
|Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
|Symonds, J. B.
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)
|Oram, Albert E.
|Urwin, T. W.
|Varley, Eric G.
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
|Wainwright Edwin (Dearne Valley)
|Janner, Sir Barnett
|Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
|Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
|Paget, R. T.
|Watkins, David (Consett)
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)
|Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
|Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
|Wilkins, W. A.
|Lestor, Miss Joan
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
|Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
|Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
|Winterbottom, R. E.
|Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
|Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
|Price, William (Rugby)
|TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Mr. Whitlock and
|Mr Walter Harrison.