HC Deb 19 July 1967 vol 750 cc2279-91
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 11, line 4, after 'made' to insert: 'within twelve months of the passage of this Act'. The purpose of the Amendment is to urge the Government to get a move on. We are now discussing the right of the banks and discount houses to enjoy exemption from certain provisions of the accounting procedures under the principal Act. When we discussed this in Committee, several of my hon. Friends suggested that the time had come to put an end to these exemptions. The Minister of State, in his usual condition of sweet reasonableness, expressed great sympathy with the proposition, but suggested that there was need for further consultation and consideration. He said: The real answer to all this discussion is that since the publication of the Jenkins Report there has been far more public controversy about the extent to which not only banking companies but all other companies should disclose information and if the Jenkins Committee were appointed now, with the same people, I question very much whether it would come down in the way it did in the majority report on this issue."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee E, 21st March, 1967; c. 385.] The Jenkins Committee's majority recommendation was that, on balance, the case for continuation of the exemption was made out. But there was a strong Minority Report which suggested that the accounting exemption should be removed.

Since we discussed these matters in Committee, we have had the very wide-ranging report of the Prices and Incomes Board on banking charges. I should be the last to suggest that the Prices and Incomes Board is on this matter or any other the ultimate repository of wisdom. It is only fair to say that, in this case, it employed a group of Dutch consultants. One wonders a little what the Dutch banking houses would think if they had a supposedly serious study of their charges and accounting procedures presented to them, under Government aegis, by a group of British consultants. They might treat it with some contempt. It is understandable that this particular effusion of the Jones Board has been treated in some quarters with a certain amount of contempt.

Nevertheless, on the point we are here considering, the question of the desirability of the banks enjoying exemption from disclosure of their transfers to reserves and their other exemptions under the principal Act, there is a considerable weight of opinion in support of the view of the Prices and Incomes Board that such exemption should come to an end.

The Minister of State said that there was a strong and, perhaps, growing case for the ending of the exemption, but he asked for more time for consultation, implying that the Government would be making their own proposals when they had completed their consultations in the not too distant future. The purpose of the Amendment is to put a guillotine over the Government to require them to bring forward their proposals, if they intend to do so, within 12 months. I hope that it will act as a spur in their flank to make them complete their consultations with the banks and discount houses as soon as possible and produce their own proposals.

Mr. Nott

The Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, No. 34, made a number of foolish recommendations, but one of the good recommendations was that the banks should disclose their earnings. I suppose that that recommendation is too radical for the Government. Although they applauded the Report and members of the Government said how excellent it would be if the winds of competition could blow through the banking world, when they came to the crunch and had an opporunity of requiring the banks to disclose their earnings, they have done nothing. They have merely resorted to the old device of giving the Board of Trade discretion to decide whether a particular banking house should disclose or not.

I have heard no argument advanced—certainly, there were none in Mr. Aubrey Jones's Report—in favour of perpetuating the anomaly under which banking houses continue to be able to hide part of their earnings. When banking houses draw on their undisclosed reserves, everyone knows about it. When one of the clearing banks a few years ago lost a great deal of money on gilt-edged securities, it was evident to the well-informed that that clearing bank had drawn on its reserves. Likewise, it is argued that discount houses should not disclose their profits because they vary so widely according to the Bank Rate.

10.45 p.m.

Shareholders are well aware that discount house profits vary widely with Bank Rate. It would be much more preferable if shareholders in banks and discount houses were shown the true position and were able to judge it, as any other shareholder can judge the performance of his company, when they disclose their profits at the end of the year.

In my view, which is not shared by all my hon. Friends, it is undesirable that the Board of Trade should be given a discretion to go on deciding whether banks should take advantage of the Eighth Schedule to the Companies Act, 1948. I am disappointed that the Board of Trade has not said that on this occasion it will force banks to disclose their earnings. If the Government applaud Report No. 34 of the Prices and Incomes Board on bank charges, surely they should agree with one of its principal recommendations.

I support my hon. Friend's Amendment as second best to the full disclosure of bank profits. It would set a time limit on the decision-making process of the Board of Trade. Although I would rather see the banks disclose altogether—this is a Bill about disclosure, so we have been told—my hon. Friend's Amendment is at least an improvement on the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Darling

As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has said, there is not unanimity of opinion even on this side of the House concerning disclosure by banks. I assure both hon. Members who have spoken that we will complete our examination, consultations and discussions as quickly as possible and that the Regulations will be introduced.

The difficulty about the Amendment is that having decided, I think rightly, the degree of disclosure or the classes of banks which shall make disclosure and the form in which it will be required, we think it right that this should be done by regulation and not written into an Act of Parliament, this part of which will probably be unamended for a considerable time. By making these arrangements by Statutory Instrument, we are giving to the Board of Trade the flexibility which, I am convinced, is required.

The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that if we accept the Amendment, which would mean that at the end of 12 months there has to be full disclosure, and the power of the Board of Trade to make regulations has gone, we would be saying that the Board of Trade should not have a continuing power to make arrangements for disclosure or make changes in disclosure. Circumstances may make it reasonable, some time after a year, to withdraw exemptions, for instance, which may be given or to make exemptions apply to a smaller number of banks. This flexibility is necessary.

We agree with the principle of disclosure, but we must take into account that not only do some right hon. and hon. Members opposite feel that in some respects there should be a limitation to the disclosure by banks of their reserves, activities and the rest, but that that view is held strongly in certain other quarters also. The extent to which, in following the majority Report of the Jenkins Committee, we need to take these factors into consideration is a matter which we have had under discussion for some time.

When the Bill is on the Statute Book, as it will be shortly, we will come forward with the Regulations about banks' disclosure.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the conversations being concluded as rapidly as possible. Can he put a date to it?

Mr. Darling

Not in the sense of bringing forward the Regulations. We will bring them forward as quickly as possible. The discussions are almost completed, I think. The Board of Trade, as the hon. Member will appreciate, is not the only Government Department involved here, but the discussions are, I think, almost completed, and we will bring forward Regulations as quickly as possible.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Corfield

I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 11, line 6, to leave out 'or'.

We are, I understand, taking with it my following Amendments: No. 30, in page 11, line 6, after 'companies' insert 'or any specified company';

No. 31, in page 11, line 9, leave out 'any circumstances whatsoever and' and insert 'the status of such companies';

No. 32, in page 11, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert: (3) For the purpose of this section the status of a company shall be either that of a private company or public company: 'private company' shall have the meaning ascribed thereto by section 455(1) of the principal Act, and 'public company' means a company in the case of which there has, in respects the whole or any proportion of its share capital, been granted a quotation on a recognised stock exchange. No. 314, in page 11, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert: (3) For the purpose of this section the status of a company shall be either that of a private company or public company; 'private company' shall have the meaning ascribed thereto by section 28(1) of the principal Act, and 'public company' means any company other than a private company. No. 33, in page 11, line 21, at end insert: (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 454 of the principal Act and the foregoing provisions of this section, any statutory instrument containing by virtue of subsection (2) of this section regulations with respect to any class of companies or any specified company shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts, 1945 and 1965 with the substitution of the words 'an inquiry' for the words 'a local inquiry' in paragraph 3 of the First Schedule of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. Clause 12 embodies a principle which is about as repugnant to the whole basis of our constitutional and common law as it is possible to find, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen, before they chatter about it, will turn to subsection (2), which makes it clear that the Board of Trade has power to make Regulations and, if in difficulties in describing what the Board is attempting to define, can define a class of companies by reference to "any circumstances whatsoever"; and by paragraph (b) it can be judge and jury in its own case: if a question arises whether a company does or does not fall within a class specified in regulations so made, it shall be decided by the Board of Trade whose decision shall be final. This is a principle which, in my view, is wholly unacceptable. Even if one were less rigid than I happen to be in these matters, the onus, I think, should be strongly on the Board of Trade to give a much better reason for incorporating this sort of principle in the Bill than the Board has done to date.

The difficulty which has led the Board into this appalling bit of law, if that be what it is to be called, arises from the failure to see clearly at what the Board is directing the Clause, because the Clause is objectionable in two ways: in the first place, because the powers given to the Board are unacceptable for the reason I have indicated, but because also it does not carry out effectively what the Board of Trade wants to do. Let me take the second point first.

The Board of Trade wants to have power to amend paragraph 23 of the Eighth Schedule to the principal Act. Paragraph 23, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has been saying, allows certain exemptions for banking or discount companies from the requirements of Part I of the Schedule, and Part I sets out certain matters specifically to be included in the accounts of the company. The point which has to be borne in mind is that that exemption arises where a particular company satisfies the Board of Trade that it ought to be treated for the purposes of the Schedule as a banking company, or as a discount company, or as a banking and discount company, as the case may be. It is important to stress the fact that the singular is used throughout. Of course I know that by the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural, but in this case it is quite clear that one can only get exemption as a result of an individual application. Therefore, the situation is that the companies which are or which can be exempt are exempted one by one as a result of specific applications put in by them.

One would have thought the corollary to this would have been that the Board of Trade, taking power in the Clause to remove this exemption by Regulations, would have taken power to do it in relation to an individual company, and this is what the Amendment sets out to do, to add to the power to unexempt—if that is the right word—the power to do so in relation to a particular company.

I agree there is a difficulty that one is getting into a hybrid Statutory Instrument, getting a situation in which one may have to have a special Parliamentary procedure, but let us look at the alternative if we do not do something of this sort. We are going to be in the position where the Board of Trade brings forward Regulations defining a class, because they can only make Regulations under this Clause generally, or in relation to a class of company. So they take away the exemption completely and make Regulations for every single company, or they partially take away the exemption in relation to a class of company.

Then they come to the final class by reference to "any circumstances whatsoever". It could well be that the Regulations would be in such a form that it would be almost impossible for the House to decide at what type of discount house or bank the Regulations were aimed. Of course, for the Board of Trade it would not matter because the Board could say, "Oh, we mean this to mean you; you are in, no matter how the Regulations are worded". This seems to us to be a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs and we accept, realising the Board of Trade's difficulty in regard to definition, the form of words which will add the power to legislate, or to bring in Regulations, in relation to a particular, named, company because then we know exactly what the Board of Trade is aiming at. The Board has no difficulty, and everybody knows what has happened.

We admit that there may be the problem of the special Parliamentary procedure, but this is better than that we should introduce something whereby the Board of Trade makes these Regulations and then becomes its own judge as to what is meant. This power to define a class should be altered so as to enable the Board of Trade to define the status of companies. I have put in private or public companies, but in the principal Act, there are listed the variety of companies—the variety of definitions—one can take. If this approach appeals to the Board of Trade, which I regret to think it does not seem to have done, it could alter the definition of "status".

Even if the whole approach which we have put down cannot be accepted, I hope that the Board of Trade would consider regulating by reference to an individual company because this is the sensible way of "unexempting" a company. It gets over the problem of the Board of Trade ever being faced with the awful drafting in the Bill likely to be produced if it tries to define a class of companies by any reference whatever if, in fact, it wants to make Regulations for a number of companies.

It should not try to draw an artificial class around us and one which has no clear relation to banks and discount houses or to anything else. I hope that the Minister of State will come forward in his usually sympathetic mood but in his less than usually determined mood to do something about this Clause because, at present, it is something which we should not accept for the constitutional principles of this country for one moment at all. If we make Regulations and then decide who is within them, and say that this is final, then it will be a most awful admission of defeat.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) was concerned that there might be some indecent exposure of blushing maidens, if I can put it that way, as a result of the drafting of the Clause. To change the metaphor, I am slightly concerned that the convoy may have to travel at the speed of the slowest ship.

We discussed this matter briefly in Committee. As the Clause is drafted, there seems to be a danger that the withdrawal of exemptions in the case of public companies, which I believe to be desirable for banking and discount houses as soon as possible, might be held up because of a very strong case being made by one of them. The Minister of State's answer on this point in Committee left some doubt. He said: … if the Board of Trade issued regulations to say that a class—whatever class out of the list that I gave—should have certain privileges which they now enjoy withdrawn, then the withdrawing of the privileges would apply to all the companies in that class. Individual companies might say, 'This is going to be harmful to us.' We would look at that case at the time that the regulations were being drawn up and being mooted around. I ought not to say this, because of cases that I know, but I question at the moment whether such a case for an individual company within a class could be made out in the way that the hon. Member suggests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 21st March, 1967; c. 382.] The Minister of State may be right about that, but there seems to be a danger that the process for publicly quoted banking and discount houses, where the exemption should be withdrawn and withdrawn rapidly, might be held up because of an individual case within the class.

I therefore strongly support the Amendment, although from possibly a slightly different standpoint from my hon. Friend's. The arguments which my hon. Friend advanced were totally valid, but, in a sense, both sides of the case are equally valid and the Amendment can be supported from both.

The case seems to be strengthened by Amendment No. 32 which suggests that a distinction should be drawn between quoted and unquoted companies, and by now the Minister of State knows that that is where I believe that the distinction should be drawn in virtually every case.

There is a case for supporting the Amendment from both my hon. Friend's viewpoint and from the other side of the fence. Both lead in the same direction and, I hope, to the same conclusion.

Mr. Darling

I do not know in which direction the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) wants to travel, because the proposals of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) would allow every bank in the country to take action against the provisions for disclosure, and no bank would ever be called upon to disclose anything. The two hon. Gentlemen ought to get together and find out in which direction they are travelling.

Mr. Corfield

But the right hon. Gentleman is still left with power to make Regulations with respect to banks and discount houses generally.

Mr. Darling

This is where the confusion arises. We are not proposing to make Orders in respect of any individual company. We shall impose the requirements for disclosure on the classes of banks. The banks have to be classified and there are not so many banks that we shall have any great difficulty about classifying them. We want to make sure that where there is uncertainty about whether an individual bank falls within one class or another, there is power in the regulations to say that it comes within a certain category, a certain class of banks. I am sure that the procedure we have laid down to proceed by Statutory Instrument will ensure that no bank will be harshly treated in the ways the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South thought possible.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be upset if I say that there are drafting problems with the Amendments. There would be a restriction that a class of companies … may be framed by reference to the status of such companies, … "Status" concerns whether the companies are private or quoted. It is necessary to find out what "may" means. If it means "must", we cannot have the restriction written into the Bill to apply to only two classes of banks. As the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South said, the question of status must cover a much wider area, and we must pick things up from the definition Clauses and insert them here. If "may" means "may", there is little point in mentioning only two ways in which the class may be defined. If the matter is left wide open, "may" is a very acceptable way of saying that we shall proceed in a commonsense and reasonable way to come to a definition of class of banks, and the definitions will appear in any Orders we may produce.

Hon. Members opposite are making too much of this. All that we suggest is that in the Regulations the Board of Trade shall have power to define the classes of banks and indicate the kind of disclosure that will apply to each class. That is very reasonable, and I cannot understand any objection.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I am not sure that the Minister has grasped the point. He says that in defining the class there will be great care to see that there is no hardship to an individual company, but if the Board of Trade's concern is to ensure that, surely the whole class will be held up? If, alternatively, the Board of Trade is determined to define the class and get it past the hurdle of exemption, there might be hardship to one company. This is where my hon. Friend and I are on the same ground.

Mr. Darling

I do not agree. I do not think that there will be any trouble. But if it is possibly right that hardship could be done on the fringe of classification, so to speak, the hon. Gentleman must not proceed on the basis of the Amendment. He must produce something better.

Mr. Graham Page

We can see clearly from this side of the House what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. He has not appreciated that he has taken excessive powers to do it, and this is what we are trying to prevent.

Reading through the Clause, one can see that the whole point in extending the powers in subsection (1) is that the Board of Trade shall have the right to interpret its own enactments. The objectionable part of the Clause is that it gives power to make Statutory Instruments, Regulations and Orders relating to a class of bank, and then say, "You, chum, are in this class" or, "You are not"—to interpret retrospectively its own legislation excludes the rule of law and the jurisdiction of the courts. Not even the Emergency Regulations in war time did this—not even the Rhodesia Orders and not even the Prices and Incomes Orders, which were had enough.

I have an office in Victoria Street, but I do not subscribe to the maxim that the gentleman in Victoria Street knows best.

This cannot stand. The amending Regulations should be general or between private and public company or applied to an individual company, and then everybody would know what they are.

Mr. Darling

indicated dissent.

Mr. Page

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he would. If the Order is general, that is all right. If it refers to a company by its status, that is all right—a distinction between private and public company. If it refers to an individual company, that individual company is specified in the Order and there can be no interpretation by the Board of Trade as to what is meant. In the last Amendment of the group we are discussing, the individual company would have the right to make proper representations by petition or public inquiry.

As it stands, this is the most arrogant Clause in the Bill. It is an attack on the rule of law, and it is a pity that the Law Officers are not present to advise the right hon. Gentleman. It is arrogance to no purpose. Our Amendments save the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State from their own conceit in trying to usurp the functions of the court. I hope that hon. Members will support us in the Lobby.

Question put, That "or" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 93.

Division No. 483.] AYES [11.10 p.m.
Abse, Leo Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Garrett, W. E.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Alldritt, Walter Darling, Rt. Hn. George Gregory, Arnold
Allen, Scholefield Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Anderson, Donald Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Archer, Peter Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Haseldine, Norman
Armstrong, Ernest Davies, Harold (Leek) Heffer, Eric S.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dell, Edmund Hooley, Frank
Barnett, Joel Dempsey, James Horner, John
Baxter, William Doig, Peter Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Beaney, Alan Dunnett, Jack Howie, W.
Bence, Cyril Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Hoy, James
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Edwards, Robert (Bileton) Huckfield, L.
Bessell, Peter Edwards, William (Merioneth) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Blackburn, F. Ellis, John Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Boardman, H. English, Michael Hynd, John
Booth, Albert Ennals, David Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Boyden, James Ensor, David Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Bradley, Tom Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Brooks, Edwin Faulds, Andrew Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Fernyhough, E. Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Buchan, Norman Finch, Harold Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Cant, R. B. Foley, Maurice Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Carmichael, Neil Ford, Ben Lawson, George
Coleman, Donald Forrester, John Lestor, Miss Joan
Conlan, Bernard Fraser, John (Norwood) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Galpern, Sir Myer Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Lomas, Kenneth Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Loughlin, Charles Norwood, Christopher Slater, Joseph
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Ogden, Eric Small, William
McBride, Neil Orbach, Maurice Spriggs, Leslie
McCann, John Orme, Stanley Steel, David (Roxburgh)
MacColl, James Oswald, Thomas Swingler, Stephen
Mackie, John Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Mackintosh, John P. Owen, Will (Morpeth) Tinn, James
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Padley, Walter Tomney, Frank
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Urwin, T. W.
McNamara, J. Kevin Paget, R. T. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm Park, Trevor Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Walden, Brian (AH Saints)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) Pavitt, Laurence Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Manuel, Archie Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Wallace, George
Mapp, Charles Pentland, Norman Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Marquand, David Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) White, Mrs. Elrene
Mendelson, J. J. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Whitlock, William
Millan, Bruce Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Price, William (Rugby) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Robertson, John (Paisley) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Molloy, William Rose, Paul Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Ross, Rt. Hn. William Winterbottom, R. E.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Woof, Robert
Moyle, Roland Sheldon, Robert
Murray, Albert Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Newens, Stan Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Mr. Charles Grey.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gower, Raymond Page, Graham (Crosby)
Astor, John Grant-Ferris, R. Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Gresham Cooke, R. Peel, John
Baker, W. H. K. Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Pounder, Rafton
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Pym, Francis
Brinton, Sir Tatton Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hawkins, Paul Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hill, J. E. B. Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bryan, Paul Holland, Philip Royle, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M) Hunt, John Russell, Sir Ronald
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Kaberry, Sir Donald Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cooke, Robert King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Smith, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Kirk, Peter Stainton, Keith
Cordle, John Kitson, Timothy Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Corfield, F. V. Knight, Mrs. Jill Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Costain, A. P. Langford-Holt, Sir John Temple, John M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Currie, G. B. H. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Ward, Dame Irene
Dance, James Maginnis, John E. Weatherill, Bernard
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Webster, David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Emery, Peter Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Worsley, Marcus
Errington, Sir Eric Montgomery, Fergus Wright, Esmond
Eyre, Reginald More, Jasper Younger, Hn. George
Fortescue, Tim Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Foster, Sir John Nabarro, Sir Gerald TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gibson-Watt, David Neave, Airey Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Mr. Anthony Grant.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Nott, John
Glover, Sir Douglas Onslow, Cranley