§ 11.4 p.m.
§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)
I beg to move,That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Children (Performances) Regulations 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1728), dated 30th October, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be annulled.We had hoped to have about 90 minutes to deal with this fairly complex Motion, but we are reduced to less than 30, so I shall try to deploy an argument which needs 20 minutes in about half that time, so as to allow other hon. Members to speak and to give the Under-Secretary time to reply.
These Regulations should be annulled, first, because they are bad Regulations, stemming from a bad Act, and, second, because they are unenforceable at the point at which they most need to be enforced. They are bad because they permit the wholesale and virtually unrestricted employment of children in entertainment. Much of this employment is at present illegal. In the opinion of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Trades Union Congress, the entertainment unions and the Education Welfare Officers National Association, the people whose duty it is to enforce the law—the bodies closest to the work that the children are required to perform—the Regulations are undesirable and unworkable. These are the organisations which are in a position to know what goes on, and what will continue to go on if the Regulations come into effect in their present form.
In those areas where they can be enforced, the Regulations permit what ought not to be permitted. For example, Part II drastically changes the law by permitting the employment of children of any age. The present situation is that the employment of all children under the age of 12 is illegal. The Trades Union Congress has a great deal to say about this position. In the circumstances, I will confine myself to a single quotation. It states:The General Council has made detailed criticisms with the general import that the proposed restrictions should be narrowed in the interests of the children concerned, and that certain forms of child employment in the 1034 entertainment industry, for example, troupe work and night work, should be prohibited.Instead of meeting the points made by the T.U.C., these Regulations in many places consist of no more than valueless generalisations.
At the present time, children of school age or under school age may not be employed at all, but by Part IV children of this tender age may be employed until 10 o'clock at night.
Part V enables a child of two to work a five day week. Admittedly, the time of attendance on each day is limited to five hours, but it is utterly monstrous that Regulations made by this House should permit the employment of a child of two at all, let alone with the possibility of a five day week. The present law is that such a child may not legally work at all: under the Regulations, a child of any age, may be required to do night work, even after midnight, in spite of T.U.C. objections.
Part VI, for reasons which I shall give in a moment, is valueless.
If the Regulations go through in their present form, no one making television advertising commercials need ever apply for a licence, because there is provision in the Act, which is repeated in the Regulations, that for a period of eight days in every year a child may be employed without application being made for a licence. In those circumstances, since no individual child is ever employed continuously making television commercials, the provison gives virtually a free hand to remove television commercials altogether from the provisions of the Act.
I will quote from just one letter which I have received from a television technician. This is an example of what goes on all over London. These "telly" commercials are not made in large film studios but in empty theatres, flats and houses all over London. Keeping control of them is virtually impossible with out a strict licensing system. This man writes:A score of children"—and this is typical of a number of in stances:were used as audience, eight children were used to mime to the tape of a commercial jingle, and I would judge that three of the eight were five or under. The smallest child was no more than three years of age.1035Although at first the novelty of the situation was enjoyed, towards the end of the day the younger children appeared to be tired and spent.I will not continue further, except to say what happened at the end of that whole day session. Incidentally, the public do not realise that what may be seen on the screen for a few seconds, often needs a whole day session. The letter goes on to speak ofA line up of the children singing and miming to the playback.and ends by saying that at the end of it the smallest child started to weep. He lay down on the stage and could not move. Therefore, the suggestion that there is no cruelty involved, and that the children always enjoy this work is not confirmed by the experience of those who are closest to it. If these Regulations come into effect, this kind of thing will not only continue but the House will have taken a decision legally to permit it to go on. If no licence is needed, these Regulations, although they purport to be effective, can never be enforced, nor will anyone know what is taking place. Of a total of about 5,000 commercial programmes made every year, about 40 per cent. employ children. If it seems more than this, this is because films with children are used frequently. Between 1,000 and 2,000 children a year work in this field—roughly as many, I suppose, as used to climb London's chimneys. These Regulations provide the first legal reversion to mass employment of children of any age since the days of Lord Shaftesbury.
Why has this been allowed to happen? My final words are intended to explain how the situation has occurred. I think it has occurred by a series of accidents. It was certainly not the intention of the Bateson Committee which sat in 1950, from whose recommendations the legislation and these Regulations stem. The Bateson Committee would be horrified. When the Committee sat, television commercials did not exist and the Committee certainly could not have foreseen the Regulations which have stemmed from its recommendations which were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances at that time.
In 1962 when the Act from which these Regulations sprung was going through 1036 Parliament, Lord Stonham moved an Amendment prohibiting the employment of children in television for advertising purposes. He was given assurances on that point—
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)
§ Mr. Jenkins
My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I can quote if necessary. Lord Stonham was given assurances and he withdrew the Amendment in view of those assurances.
The assurances proved in the end to be valueless. It was not anybody's iniquity or fault, but a mistake was made in the redrafting which confused the situation still further, so much so that for five years this Act has lain on the Statute Book unenforced because the Regulations to bring it into effect were so complicated that the draftsmen were unenthusiastic. Five years later we are presented with rushed-through Regulations which at this time of the night we cannot examine fully, and we are asked to legalise something which ought not to be legalised.
I have no time to deploy the remainder of my argument, or others who wish to speak may not be able to do so. I hope I have said enough to show that this House ought to say," We will not permit this to happen." As Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, we have a duty to the people, and especially to children who are unable to speak for themselves here. It is our duty to speak for them. We have a responsibility in this matter which we must exercise.
I therefore urge this House to say to the Government," You are doing something wrong here. Take these Regulations back and produce a new Act which will provide reasonable conditions so that an application has to be made in every case when it is desired to employ a child." [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary shakes his head and says something about Parliamentary time. So these children are to be sacrificed because Parliamentary time will not permit—
§ Mr. Jenkins
I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to explain in my final words that the Regulations as they are would stem from the Act. I am not concerned to allocate responsibility. The Regulations stem from the Act; the Regulations are bad, and I hope the House will throw them out.
§ 11.14 p.m.
§ Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North)
In view of the shortness of time at our disposal, I intend to make one short point. If the hon. Member for Putney [Mr. Hugh Jenkins) cares to divide the House, I shall certainly go through the Division Lobby with him.
There has been no shortage of time for debating this matter. This Motion has been down since 12th November, and there is no doubt that the Government could have found time for an adequate debate on this important subject, particularly in a Session in which they are not over-pressed for work.
I want to deal simply with the problem which arises not among those who are employed on television but among those who are employed in the theatre. Different criteria arise. A young person employed in the theatre is likely to be in a long run if the play is successful.
There is a good example of this in Blackpool. The Blackpool Tower Company puts on a show every year which runs throughout the season. Children are employed in the show. Most of them live locally. Under the Regulations, they would be restricted to 79 days. It might be thought that that is sufficient. Over the last five years children so engaged have always been employed with the full consent of the local authority. The education authorities have decided that it was possible for the children to go to school and still go down and play at the Winter Garden at night. They appeared once a day for more than 79 days. The education authorities concerned asked Blackpool education authority to look after the children who came from areas outside Blackpool and ensure that they were all right. Those children were brought into schools in Blackpool. This is an example where flexibility has paid off up to now. Local education 1038 authorities have looked after the welfare of the children and ensured that they did not suffer.
Now we in Westminster are being asked to say that children can appear for only 79 days. The Government would be well advised to take the Regulations back and agree that the system which has worked well over the last few years should continue to apply and that local education authorities should have the right to investigate, supervise and ensure that children are not put upon. Local education authorities should be given the flexibility which is so important. Once again, Westminster is saying that it knows best. Over the years there has been no great trouble for those who have appeared on the theatre stage. I ask the House to reject the Regulations, thus giving the flexibility which is so important.
§ 11.18 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) made a moving plea on behalf of children who take part in performances. His concern, which we all share, is directed especially at the need to ensure that very young children who take part in performances should be adequately protected. The annulment of the Regulations would, ironically enough, achieve a result which would be precisely opposite to that which my hon. Friend seeks and would place in jeopardy the very children whom we all wish to protect.
The whole object of the Regulations is to protect child performers. The protection which the Regulations afford is substantial and very detailed. If my hon. Friend had not made these Regulations, none of these detailed safeguards would come into effect. This would mean, for instance, that children of any age could be employed for occasional performances, including occasional television performances, without any let or hindrance. It has been suggested that the Regulations would legalise the employment of even babies in television and other performances. This is not so. The question of what kinds of performances children may take part in and at what age depends entirely upon Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. It would be out of order if I were now to dissertate 1039 upon the merits of the decision taken by Parliament in 1963, but I should make clear that Part II of the Act will come into full operation on 3rd March next year irrespective of the fate of these Regulations.
There has been some delay in bringing this provision in since it is, as it were, merely the skeleton of the new system for controlling performances by children, and it was essential to have extensive consultation with all those affected before making these Regulations, the purpose of which is to put flesh upon the bare bones of the statutory provisions and thus ensure that the new system for control ling performances by children is effective. Although the statutory provisions would operate after a fashion without any regulations at all, the result would be to deprive the children concerned, whose interests we all have at heart, of the necessary additional protection which the Regulations give.
I do not believe that it could seriously be suggested that we can do without any regulations at all. This would be fraught with danger for child performers, particularly those who are engaged occasion ally for television advertisements.
The issue before the House, therefore, is whether these Regulations are adequate. It has been known for many years that the existing law on performances by children fell short of modern needs, particularly in relation to performances for films and independent television. The provisions of Part II of the current Act, which provide a comprehensive system of licensing children of all ages up to school-leaving age to take part in performances of all kinds flows from the report of the Departmental Committee (known as the Bateson Committee) on the subject. A small ration of unlicensed performances, on not more than four days in any period of six months, is allowed, and children under 13 may be licensed to perform individual parts and to take part in musical and balletic performances.
§ Mr. Morgan
I am sorry—no. Time is my enemy. My hon. Friend has been talking about it for six months. Surely, ten minutes is not too much for me now.
1040 I should make clear, since there have been suggestions to the contrary, that the Labour Party, when in opposition, did not oppose the 1963 Act. Part II of the Act does not distinguish performances in television advertisements from any other film or television performances, and this position was accepted by both the main parties in 1963.
§ Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)
We are here talking of the Regulations. Which bodies have approved them?
§ Mr. Morgan
I shall come to that. My hon. Friend has widely circulated a letter seeking support for his Prayer. I and my predecessor have made patient attempts to explain to him the effect of the Regulations and their relationship to the Statute under which they are made. I regret that, despite these explanations, my hon. Friend still repeats a number of misconceptions, which largely vitiate his argument. He has seen fit to circularise these to all hon. Members and has repeated most of them in his speech to night.
If time allowed, I should be glad to comment on all the points my hon. Friend raised. He has implied that those who have studied the matter agree that the Government are wrong in proceeding with the Regulations. Let us look at the facts. We have had extensive consultations with a large number of interested bodies. Only one of them, Equity, suggested that no regulations should be made until the statute law had been strengthened. All the other bodies concerned with children's education and welfare agreed that these Regulations ought to be made, and several of them pressed for this to be done as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to intervene in the debate by rising to a point of order.
§ Mr. Morgan
The local authority associations, the Association of Education Committees, the Inner London Education Authority and the National Union of Teachers have all expressed themselves as in general satisfied with the regulations. They take that view because they 1041 appreciate the true significance and effect of the Regulations, which, in my sub mission, mark a considerable advance on the present situation and will much increase the protection which we afford children taking part in performances.
§ Mr. Morgan
I will come to that.
Next, my hon. Friend suggested that the Regulations… would have the effect of legalising the present illegal employment of children.I have already explained that that is not true. The Regulations do precisely the opposite. They restrict the amount of performing which children would other wise be legally free to undertake.
My hon. Friend then says that the Regulations would permit unlicensed employment. They do no such thing. It is the Statute, and he well knows it, which permits a very small number of days' unlicensed employment.
§ Mr. Morgan
The rô le of the Regulations is to ensure that excessive hours are not worked on those days.
The note attached to my hon. Friend's letter repeats the statement that the Regulations permit the employment of children of any age. They do not. Their whole effect is restrictive.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the fact that in a number of respects the T.U.C. would have liked the Regulations to be more restrictive. This does not mean that the T.U.C. did not want any Regulations to be made. On the contrary, it recognised that the new provisions would much increase the protection afforded to child performers.
As against the T.U.C.'s view that in some respects the Regulations should be tighter, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had to balance the representations from entertainment interests that the Regulations were unnecessarily tight, against the views of the bodies I have mentioned. There were irreconcilable differences of view on some issues, but much of what is in the Regulations proved generally acceptable.
The House should bear in mind that under the present system the Inner 1042 London Education Authority and the L.C.C. before it—and my hon. Friend was a member of that body—was in the habit of issuing licences for up to 180 days a year. The maximum under the Regulations for children over 13 is 80 days a year, and under the age of 13 it is 40 days a year.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use a point of order to intervene in the debate.
§ Mr. Morgan
I hope that my hon. Friend can take it.
He suggests that Part IV of the Regulations will alow children under school age to perform up to 10 p.m., and that Part V will enable children of any age to be required to do night work. This completely overlooks the fact that a licensing authority may not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the child is fit to take part in the proposed performances, that proper provision has been made to secure his health and kind treatment, and, if he is of school age, that his education will not suffer. This. I believe, is the only occasion in any statutory instrument where the words "kind" or "kindness" appear. There is no question of a licence being created for work which a local authority thinks will be harmful to the child concerned.
The protection in the Regulations is additional to the basic safeguard provided by the need to obtain a licence. The maximum number of days on which a child may perform under licence in any period of 12 months is limited, and there are detailed safeguards for the child's health, education and welfare. These cover such matters as arrangements for education, safeguarding of earnings, the appointment of matrons to look after the child, inspection and approval of places of performance or rehearsal and of lodgings, restrictions on other employment while performing and so on. The permitted amounts of work in each week and each day in the various kinds of performances, the length of the working week, the maximum period at a place of performance or rehearsal and the maximum performing time each day, the 1043 minimum night interval, meal breaks and so on are laid down in detail.
My hon. Friend has campaigned on the issue, both in the House and outside, with evangelical fervour. I respect his sincerity and appreciate his great experience in the matter, since he has for many years been an official of Equity.
But his burning zeal is misconceived, in that he has concentrated on the theory of the system over the past 35 years rather than the practice. It is also mis- directed in that he has tilted his lance at the windmill of the Regulations rather than at the castle of the 1963 Act.
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
I protest most strongly at the way in which this most important debate has been telescoped into this ridiculously short time—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question forth with pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)).
§ The House proceeded to a Division —
§ Mr. Edwin Brooks(seated and covered) (Bebington)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that on an earlier occasion when a Prayer was being discussed concerning the amalgamation of police forces in the Thames Valley, when considerably more time had been made available for the debate than has been made available for the Prayer this evening, Mr. Speaker ruled that inadequate time had been given for the discussion and the debate was resumed on a later occasion. In view of the extreme lack of time available for this debate, may I ask whether the Chair would consider that there might be a case for deferring the Motion for further dis- cussion?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
The hon. Gentleman will find that the time has varied very considerably as required by the Chair for the adequacy of debate. The Chair on this occasion is exercising the discretion required to be exercised by Standing Order 100, and the decision must stand.
§ The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 117.1045
|Division No. 39.]||AYES||[11.30 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Hooley, Frank||Pardoe, John|
|Alldritt, Walter||Hooson, Emlyn||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Archer, Peter||Huckfiled, Leslie||Percival, Ian|
|Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)||Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)|
|Beaney, Alan||Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Pym, Francis|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Judd, Frank||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Kenyon, Clifford||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)||Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Richard, Ivor|
|Carlisle, Mark||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Kershaw, Anthony||Rose, Paul|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Kitson, Timothy||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Cooke, Robert||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Crowder, F. P.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Lestor, Miss Joan||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Tilney, John|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Lubbock, Eric||Tinn, James|
|Dickens, James||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Driberg, Tom||Mackintosh, John p.||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Dunn, James A.||McNamara, J. Kevin||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Ellis, John||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Whitaker, Ben|
|Faulds, Andrew||Manuel, Archie||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Marks, Kenneth||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mendelson, John||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Miscampbell, Norman||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Molloy, William||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Ford, Ben||Monro, Hector||Woof, Robert|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Murray, Albert||Worsley, Marcus|
|Gower, Raymond||Newens, Stan|
|Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||Orbach, Maurice||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hazell, Bert||Orme, Stanley||Mr. Albert Booth and|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Palmer, Arthur||Mr. James Allason.|
|Hill, J. E. B.|
|Allen, Scholefield||Fernyhough, E.||Oswald, Thomas|
|Anderson, Donald||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Forrester, John||Parker, John (Dagentham)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Fowler, Gerry||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Barnett, Joel||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Pentland, Norman|
|Bitten, John||Grey, Charles (Durham)||Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.|
|Boyden, James||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Hannan, William||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Probert, Arthur|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Haseldine, Norman||Rees, Merlyn|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,w.)||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Buchan, Norman||Howie, W.||Sheldon, Robert|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Cant, R. B.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Carmichael Neil||Hynd, John||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Coe, Denis||Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Slater, Joseph|
|Coleman, Donald||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Snow, Julian|
|Conlan, Bernard||Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)||Swingler, Stephen|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Taverne, Dick|
|Cronin, John||Leadbitter, Ted||Thornton, Ernest|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Lomas, Kenneth||Varley, Eric G.|
|Dalyell, Tam||Loughlin, Charles||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||McBride, Neil||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||McCann, John||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Davies, Dr Ernest (Stretford)||MacColl, James||Weitzman, David|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McGuire, Michael||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Mackie, John||Whitlock, William|
|Dell, Edmund||Maclennan, Robert||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Dewar, Donald||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Dobson, Ray||Millan, Bruce||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Moonman, Eric||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Eadie, Alex||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|English, Michael||Oakes, Gordon||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Ennals, David||O'Malley, Brian||Mr. Joseph Harper and|
|Ensor, David||Oram, Albert E.||Dr. Miller.|
|Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)|
§ Motion made, and Question put forth with, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sit-1046
§ tings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended—[Mr. McBride].
§ The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 30.1047
|Division No. 40.]||AYES||[11.40 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Coe, Denis||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Conlan, Bernard||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Crawshaw, Richard||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Anderson, Donald||Cronin, John||Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)|
|Archer, Peter||Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Ford, Ben|
|Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Forrester, John|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Fowler, Gerry|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Fraser, John (Norwood)|
|Barnes, Michael||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)|
|Barnett, Joel||Dell, Edmund||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)|
|Beaney, Alan||Dewar, Donald||Gregory, Arnold|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dickens, James||Grey, Charles (Durham)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dobson, Ray||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)|
|Beardman, H. (Leigh)||Doig, Peter||Hannan, William|
|Booth, Albert||Driberg, Tom||Harper, Joseph|
|Boyden, James||Dunnett, Jack||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Haseldine, Norman|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Hazell, Bert|
|Brooks, Edwin||Eadie, Alex||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Ellis, John||Hooley, Frank|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||English, Michael||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)||Ennals, David||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Ensor, David||Howie, W.|
|Buchan, Norman||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Cant, R. B.||Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Hynd, John|
|Carmichael, Neil||Faulds, Andrew||Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Fernyhough, E.||Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)|
|Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Newens, Stan||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)||Oakes, Gordon||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Ogden, Eric||Silverman, Julius|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||O'Malley, Brian||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)||Oram, Albert E.||Slater, Joseph|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Orbach, Maurice||Snow, Julian|
|Judd, Frank||Orme, Stanley||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Kenyon, Clifford||Oswald, Thomas||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, S'tn)||Stodart, Anthony|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Palmer, Arthur||Swingler, Stephen|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Taverns, Dick|
|Lever, L. M, (Ardwick)||Pardoe, John||Tinn, James|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Pavitt, Laurence||Varley, Eric G.|
|Loughlin, Charles||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Lubbock, Eric||Pentland, Norman||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|McCann, John||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Mackie, John||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Weitzman, David|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Price, William (Rugby)||Whitaker, Ben|
|Mallalieu, E. L, (Brigg)||Probert, Arthur||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Manuel, Archie||Rees, Merlyn||Whittock, William|
|Mapp, Charles||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Marks, Kenneth||Richard, Ivor||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Mendelson, John||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Millan, Bruce||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Wilson, William (Coventry, s.)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Winnick, David|
|Molloy, William||Roebuck, Roy||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Moorman, Eric||Rose, Paul||Woof, Robert|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)||Mr. Neil McBride and|
|Murray, Albert||Sheldon, Robert||Dr. Miller.|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Tilney, John|
|Biffen, John||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.w.)||MacArthur, Ian||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)||Monro, Hector||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Worsley, Marcus|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Pym, Francis||Younger, Hn. George|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Cower, Raymond||Russell, Sir Ronald||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hill, J. E. B.||Smith, Dudley (W'wick&L'mington)||Mr. Crowder and|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Stodart, Anthony||Mr. Robert Cooke.|