HC Deb 01 April 1969 vol 781 cc359-83
Mr. Sheldon

I beg to move Amendment No. 167, in page 4, line 29, at end insert: 'provided that the number of such offices does not exceed four'. This matter is to do with the voting rights of Ministers, although the Clause itself deals with Ministers and other officers. The intention is to limit the number of Ministers who will be qualified as voting peers. I am not closely concerned about the precise number who would be limited in this way, but I feel that some limitation is required.

Mr. Iremonger

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. There is such an intolerable noise that it is impossible to hear the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

It is desirable for all hon. Members who are not speaking to the Committee to speak in very low tones and, indeed, for those who address the House to speak very clearly.

Mr. Sheldon

As I was saying, the purpose of the Amendment is to place some limitation on the number of Ministers qualifying as voting peers.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Every since your Ruling, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has been criticising it and muttering away so that I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is saying.

The Temporary Chairman

I did not hear the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) to keep criticising the Liberal Party? Liberal Members have not been here tonight. How can they be causing disturbance? It is not fair.

The Temporary Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sheldon

The purpose of the Amendment is to place some limitation on the number of Ministers able to vote in the House of Lords and thereby exercise some considerable influence upon the voting decisions there. I am not too concerned about the precise number inserted in the Amendment. I am open to argument about that. But that there should be some limitation I am in no doubt.

10.15 p.m.

Two passages in Appendix II of the White Paper cause me great concern and disquiet. Paragraph 2 of Appendix II says: … in order to obtain full advantage from an improved flow of legislation from one House to the other, to increase the number of Cabinet and other Ministers in the House of Lords. At present there are in the House only two Cabinet Ministers and 13 other Ministers (including the Whips), of whom one is permanently at the United Nations and two others are not often able to attend the House because of other commitments. The implied intention is to increase the number of Ministers in the House of Lords, and obviously, because of the considerable criticism of the number of Ministers in the House of Commons, to increase the number of Ministers in the House of Lords as against the number in the House of Commons.

Mr. John Ryan (Uxbridge)

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is a celebrated user of four-letter words and obscenities, appears to be muttering under his breath. Would it be in order to suggest that the microphones could be moved nearer the hon. Gentleman so that if he puts himself out of order the Chair would be aware of it?

Mr. Lubbock

I was asking the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir. D. Glover), who was muttering in my ear, what he was talking about. I think I heard him say, "On public business". It would be for the convenience of the Committee if hon. Members who wish to intervene in another hon. Member's speech did so from a standing position and not sedentarily.

Sir D. Glover

I do not know what has happened to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I never said a word. He seems to be like Joan of Arc, and is apparently hearing voices.

Mr. Sheldon

There was considerable disquiet among hon. Members about paragraph 2 of Appendix II which sets out the clear intention of the Government to increase the number of Cabinet and other Ministers in the House of Lords.

There is another matter in paragraph 4 of the same Appendix where it says: There are two ways in which the legislative process might be accelerated for bills of a kind which may not need consideration at as many stages as the present procedures require: the proceedings in one of the Houses could be curtailed, or some of the stages of consideration could be made a joint procedure. On the face of it that might appear to be unrelated to the first point I made. To me these two symbolise the very core of my opposition to this Bill, which is the enlargement of the powers of the House of Lords as opposed to the powers of this House. This is more important to me than anything else.

Patronage comes into this, too, but there is also the question of the House of Lords acquiring much greater powers than it possesses now. It was stated quite clearly in another place that although the House of Lords might be reducing its powers overall, on important matters it would be increasing them and would expect to use them to much greater effect than it had previously done. This is of considerable importance. In the other place on 19th November, 1968, contrary to what was mentioned, it seems to be the suggestion that Appendix II was just an outline of thinking for the years ahead. That was the impression I got until I read what the Lord Chancellor said about Appendix II, which refers to the increased number of Ministers and to certain Bills that are taken by Joint Committees of the two Houses, thereby increasing the influence of the House of Lords on matters where the House of Commons has sole rights.

The Lord Chancellor said: I hope that your Lordships' reading has extended to Appendix II. One of the great advantages of this reform will be that it will then enable all of us to sit down, in circumstances in which we are no longer battling with another place, to consider together the reform of Parliament; and, as is pointed out in Appendix II …".

Mr. Lubbock

I am sure it is out of order for the hon. Gentleman to quote verbatim the proceedings in another place.

Mr. Sheldon

It is, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Mallalieu, quite in order to quote official statements of Ministers in the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say: … as is pointed out in Appendix II, on public Bills, with a reformed House, there would be no reason why a Bill should start in one House and not in the other. This is important, even for the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who might have cause to regret his lack of concern in matters as crucial as this. It would need the other place to give way on some of their financial privileges …". Would the hon. Gentleman accept that readily?

Mr. Lubbock

No.

Mr. Sheldon

This is the view of the Lord Chancellor, and what the House of Lords is accepting. If the hon. Gentleman had read this carefully, he might have been as bitterly opposed to the provisions which reduce the importance of the House of Commons as are other hon. Members. This is the reason why we have spent so many hours on the Bill. I will repeat the words: It would need the other place to give way on some of their financial privileges, but I see no reason to anticipate that they would not do that if it were for the good of Parliament. One could provide that a public Bill, after having its Second reading in one House, would then perhaps have a Joint Committee stage of both Houses. He goes on to say: And why should not Statutory Instruments be capable of being amended?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th November, 1968; Vol. 297, cc. 650–51.] That is to say, by joint committees. This is an immense accretion of effective power. We know that the other place has given up the enormous powers which it dared not use, but their Lordships are taking upon themselves an enormous increase of effective, practical power, and the net result will be that the power of the House of Commons will diminish as the power of the House of Lords increases. This is what I find so disconcerting.

Mr. John Wells

The quotations which the hon. Member has given are somewhat hypothetical in that the joint procedures referred to in the quotations are not written into the Bill. He is right in fearing an increase in the number of Ministers at that end. We are already suffering from that, notably in the former Ministry of Health being represented only at that end. This is inconvenient, and I appreciate what he is saying on that matter, but surely the other part of his argument is hypothetical.

Mr. Sheldon

There will be men sitting round a table and coming to a cosy agreement. It is to be understood that the Lord Chancellor would be speaking within the context of the Appendix. I can see no other solution. I cannot think of this as a general thinking aloud about hopes. Appendix II and the speech are of a piece one interacts with the other, and this is what the House of Lords has in mind. This is what it was sold on those days in November, a House of Lords with great power. This is why so many of its members want to become life peers. This is why 70 per cent. of them wish to become life peers, and of those 95 per cent. will still wish to be there because it is going to be a new place with much greater effective power than it has had in the past.

Mr. Heffer

Is my hon. Friend aware that Clause 18 refers to a Committee composed of Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons? It is an entirely new situation and bears out completely what he has been saying.

Mr. Sheldon

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming in one particular exactly the point I was trying to make. It is in these Joint Committees that I see some of the greatest dangers to the House of Commons, because if the other place tends to become occupied by loyal party servants, valuable though they have been but with rather less imagination than is perhaps required on certain occasions, and if those people are going to be in dominant positions in Joint Committees, then we shall have discussing the legislation of this country a kind of committee different from that to which we have been used in the past. The importance of this is really quite profound.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

Can my hon. Friend clarify this point about the Joint Committees? It seemed to me that in the interruption about an entirely new situation from my other hon. Friend to whom he gave way it was implied that there had not been Joint Committees in the past. There are, of course, some Joint Committees of both Houses which are already in existence. The Ecclesiastical Committee is a statutory Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, set up under the Enabling Act.

Mr. Sheldon

Of course that is quite true. There are at present a number of Joint Commitees, but the new Joint Committees will be taking over some of the functions of the present Standing Committees of the House of Commons, and other Committees, too. They are seen as part of a Parliamentary change—"reform" is not the word for this—where these non-elected, superannuated, overpaid Members of another place will come and exercise their influence, based on the permanence of their position by contrast with our lesser prominence, and they may have some advantages in these discussions. What frightens me is that in these Joint Committees we shall have a number of Members of this House whose average tenure may be five to ten years and Members of the House of Lords whose average tenure may be up to 15 years, plus some extra years here, and with the over-great reverence which we tend to give to age, as well as with the greater Parliamentary expertise that they have, there could be some fundamental changes not wholly in accordance with the wishes of the House of Commons as it exists today.

Mr. Lubbock

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is coming to the question raised in his Amendment, but having looked through Clauses 4 and 5 I do not see any reference to the Committees. As his hon. Friend pointed out, this matter is dealt with under Clause 18. Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling the Committee how the question of the composition of these Committees is related to the number of Ministers in another place who might be paid under the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, 1965?

Mr. Sheldon

I was referring to a number of ways in which the powers of the House of Lords were going to increase. One of those ways was through the increased number of Ministers, and another was through the provision of Joint Committees. This is my central point.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The Amendment refers only to the number of Ministers.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon

I was starting with the wider approach and was pointing out that the narrow Amendment itself forms an integral part of my opposition to this part of the Bill.

We see from Appendix II that the House of Lords have at present two Cabinet Ministers and 13 other Ministers, which is considered inadequate compared with the 21 Cabinet Ministers in the House of Commons and 59 other Ministers. It seems to me that there will be an increase in Ministers in the House of Lords and an increase in the powers of the House of Lords to the disadvantage of Members of this House.

I am seeking in the Amendment to provide some disincentive to the appointment of Ministers in the House of Lords. There have been a number of occasions when we in this House have been severely handicapped through not having a Minister here to answer Questions and to be accountable because that Minister is serving in the House of Lords. But in recent years a convention has grown up that the number of Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords is likely to be limited to two, the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House, although they will take on other duties. The convention has grown up that since we must have these two Ministers in the House of Lords, these will be provided, but that no more than these will be provided.

As a result of this legislation, and following the speech of the Lord Chancellor, it looks as if this convention will be breached. If it is breached, we are likely to see an increase in the powers of the House of Lords for the first time in many hundreds of years. There is likely to be a move away from the reduction of the powers of the House of Lords towards an increase.

I find this situation utterly mystifying at a time like this. If we want reform, reform is easily available. One could have picked few times in history less opportune than this period of the twentieth century to increase the powers of the House of Lords when institutions of this kind are well on their way out, or at least need to be more restrictively employed.

The number of peers in the House of Lords who are going to be Ministers is likely to be increased, not only because of the provisions of Appendix II, but also because of the realities of power itself. The House of Lords has now an open invitation to use to the full the powers which it will now be given. It is asked to use them not sparingly, as it now has to do, but as freely and as openly as it wishes because they will be its as of right, not as a result of historical accident. Their being its as of right, it will tend to use them as powers owing to it as of right.

Once the Government's business is impeded by the action of a group of people there, then inevitably it will follow that the Patronage Secretary will have to concern himself with those people who have acquired newly-won powers. This will follow as night follows day. The Government will not leave it to the vagaries of fortune or to the whims of a few crossbenchers as to how they will act on a particular day. The House of Lords will involve itself right at the beginning. This will be an inevitable accompaniment to the power situation which will exist in the House of Lords.

There are two matters on which the Government are certainly going to give in to the other place. They are going to give in on the question of Joint Committees and on the question of more Ministers, because more Ministers mean more patronage. It is not enough to give them patronage to get there. The converse of the argument is that patronage will exist in this House, and this is something which I fear very much, because it can change this House. Once they get to the other place the patronage that was exercised here will cease to have any effect, and it will need to be replaced with another kind of patronage in the other place. This kind of patronage will make Ministers put people on the best and most interesting Committees, and give them the most interesting jobs. The Government will do this as certainly as anything is certain in this world of politics because they cannot stand by and not know what is going to happen to their legislation.

If the Government go to the lengths to which they go in this House, then the least we can expect in the House of Lords is the creation of a number of extra Ministers and extra jobs to make sure that they control the other place. This will happen whoever is Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with the present Prime Minister. The same sort of thing will happen under Prime Minister X, because of the position of the House of Lords as a power base.

The Amendment seeks to impose some kind of limitation. I am not too concerned about the exact extent of the limitation. I am concerned to delineate the problem and to show how serious it can be because we cannot be in a position to know to what extent the power of the House of Lords is to be stopped. It can be said that we have reduced the delaying period from a year to eight months, and that, therefore, this is a minor matter. All I can say is that we cannot give anyone a greater power than the ability to suspend legislation for eight months. If any hon. Member in this Chamber had that kind of power he would probably be the most important man apart from the Prime Minister, because that is an enormous power. It is an immense power to be able to suspend enactments in this way.

Sir D. Glover

Is not the hon. Gentleman underrating his own power? Is it not the hon. Gentleman's intention to delay this legislation for more than eight months?

Mr. Sheldon

I should be more than delighted to do that if I could, but I have no such conviction. All that we might do by this long process is to inform the Government and the Opposition that their scheme is ill-advised, that they have not gone into this in the way that they should have done. This is not just another technical reform. We are changing the political basis of our Parliamentary procedures of which we have every reason to be proud. We have given most of the world their legislatures. There are many things about which we may be a little disappointed, and perhaps even a little ashamed, but we have a great deal to teach the world about Parliamentary Government, and we cannot tinker with it in the way that the Government and the Opposition have tried to do. We cannot tinker with a matter which is so important and so dear to our hearts.

We see that what we really need to do is to make sure that we control in some way the powers and the privileges of the House of Lords, which may expand in a way of which we cannot be wholly sure. There are certain ways in which certain people may try to expand their powers, ways which are known to many of us, but it is not for us to say that we know them so thoroughly that we can set limits to the extent to which they can try to multiply the powers which we give them. We are introducing something quite new into Parliament.

What we do know, and know for certain, in my view, is that in that process we are reducing the power of the House of Commons and increasing the power of the House of Lords. What we want to make sure of is that we set some limit to it, and set some limit to it in the way provided by this Amendment, to limit at any rate the number of Ministers as the prime effect of patronage, as I see it, which might be given.

I myself have never seen the House of Lords as having——

Mr. John Wells

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman a second time. He has said several times that he is anxious to see the number of Ministers curbed in the House of Lords. Earlier he mentioned the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House. Could he, for the convenience of the Committee, just define what he means by "Ministers"? As I understand it, if we lump together all the rag, tag and bobtail of them there now, there are 12. My calculation may be wrong. Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "Ministers"? Does he include Ladies in Waiting and all this sort of thing?

Mr. Sheldon

I was just using the definition I got from the White Paper, paragraph 2 of Appendix II: At present there are in the House only two Cabinet Ministers and 13 other Ministers (including the Whips)…. That was the definition I was using.

The only justification I ever saw for the House of Lords was as a complement to this House. I know most Members of the House probably think we should have similar debates to those in the House of Lords. We have never ordered our affairs properly to enable us to have debates of that kind. I see no reason why we should not have debates of a very high standard if we organised ourselves properly.

What I think is the real function of the House of Lords is the checking of legislation. It has one or two others, but I have always considered them as of very much secondary importance.

The real function that House has is in certain matters which, for procedural or other reasons, do not get the full attention in this House that they should have. One can think of things like Finance Bills which, because of efforts to impress the electorate with the wrongness of the actions of the Government, are not discussed properly. So they need to be discussed by other people. Or one can have a situation where one wants practical people who can foresee the effects of legislation, experts of various kinds who can be called in and can say, "Look here, this is a kind of political solution offered by the Bill; there can be practical"——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu.) Order. The hon. Member is a long way from the number of Ministers.

Mr. Sheldon

Thank you, Mr. Mallalieu. Of course, you are quite right. I had gone a long way out of order. It was just because I was trying to show the evolution of the House of Lords' real function, which as I see it, is the one of checking legislation, rather than attempting to delay——

Mr. John Smith

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how they manage these things in Bolivia and Ethiopia, countries which, alone with us, have nominated upper Chambers?

The Temporary Chairman

I very much hope the hon. Member will not follow that question.

Mr. Sheldon

Unfortunately, I lost the opportunity——

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. How can the Committee decide on the best system, unless the hon. Member who has the knowledge explains the matter?

The Temporary Chairman

It is not knowledge of a subject which is in order on the Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon

I should like, later, with the Chair's agreement, to mention some of the absurdities of the nominated systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Would not my hon. Friend agree that by what he has done over Anguilla one Minister in another place has proved his worth?

Mr. Sheldon

In deference to the Chair, I will not pursue that——

Mr. Powell

The hon. Member referred to the House of Lords amending the Finance Bill. I was not clear whether he meant the present or the reformed House. In either case, is that something of which he would approve?

Mr. Sheldon

I was using the Finance Bill merely as an example, and was arguing that, if this House had given a Bill scant consideration, that Bill—not the Finance Bill, obviously—would need some action by another Chamber or another body. My main concern is to limit the amount of patronage in another place, which is predominantly given to Ministers. I am not wedded to the number in the Amendment, but there should be some limitation.

Sir D. Glover

We have come to regard the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) an erudite on the Bill, and have affection for his sterling qualities. I am in some difficulty because I do not agree with him about the number of Ministers in another place. The Government, supported I regret to say, by some right hon. Members of the Opposition, who, in a closed room, discussed this, have tried to alter an ancient Chamber of 700 years' lineage, not by creating an elected Chamber, with all its safeguards, but by turning it into something which will not work.

It was said earlier today that this is the silliest Bill with which the House has had to deal in all its 700 years. I think that it is much more serious, that it is an evil Bill. We are weakening the constitution by this Bill. We are producing not a more viable House of Lords but a dangerous piece of machinery, a sort of marionettes' orchestra, manipulated by those with the power of patronage. Hon Members would no doubt object if it were suggested that the Finance Bill should come within the powers of the House of Lords. However, there are overtones in this and in Clause 18 to suggest that the second Chamber may not only have power to delay legislation for eight months but may have far greater power than it has now. For example, the Lord Chancellor suggested the possibility of Joint Commons-Lords Committees.

Mr. Lubbock

They already exist.

Sir D. Glover

But only in non-controversial matters. If the other place is to vet what happens here, it is a contradiction to have Joint Committees to do that vetting job.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks to the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover

When dealing with a new concept, such as a new street, it is difficult to say that there should be four lamp posts without first being aware that that will be sufficient not to leave parts of the street in darkness.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The Amendment is concerned with the number of Ministers, and the hon. Member must address his remarks to that.

Sir D. Glover

The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wondered whether there should be a limit on the number of Ministers in the Lords.

Mr. Iremonger

I understood that the hon. Member was more concerned with the number of Ministers in the Lords who, because of these provisions, might be disqualified from voting.

Sir D. Glover

My hon. Friend is wrong. They will be able to vote, although they will not get the 33⅓ per cent. attendance allowance because they are Ministers, because they have colds or because they have been certified by a doctor as being unwell.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Or, if the disqualification falls on other voting peers, if they are certified as insane.

Sir D. Glover

That is an important point. If an escape hatch were not provided most members of the present Government would not qualify to serve in the Lords.

It would be more advantageous to the Government and less controversial to start many Bills in the other place, and, therefore, to have more Ministers there to start Bills. I think the Committee would agree that when a Bill comes to this House after being debated in the other place, even the unreformed other place, there is not the same amount of interest in it because we consider that it is halfway through its process. I imagine the Government saying that they will have more important Ministers there and start more controversial Bills there because they say they get their business more quickly than from this House.

The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is trying to ensure that this process will not happen, that the Government of the day, whether Tory. Labour, Liberal or Scottish National, will be restricted to the number of Ministers mentioned in this Clause.

We are trying to improve something which I have already said is one of the most evil measures brought to this Chamber. We are trying to make it slightly less evil and more workable. We start by saying that we are not dogmatic and are perfectly prepared to listen to reasoned argument, that four is too small and that the number should be five or six. No hon. Member is so hidebound about this Amendment as to think it cannot be changed.

Mr. Lubbock

When the hon. Gentleman said he was trying to improve the Bill, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said he was trying to kill it.

Sir D. Glover

I said this was an evil Bill which would do our constitution great harm, but in Committee we have a responsibility to try to remove some of the dangers and evils before we allow it to proceed. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne thinks that the number of Ministers in the House of Lords should be limited to four. He rightly said that he was not dogmatic about whether it should be this or five, six, or three. Before we leave this Measure the Minister should tell us why he does not think there should be a limit and whether he agrees that four would be right, or three or five. We have a right to know Government thinking on this.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I have been listening from the beginning. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Government what their view is, but he has not told the Committee what his view is. Does he think five or four? Is he in favour of the Amendment? I heard him say that the Bill is evil. He may be right, but he should tell us how many he thinks there should be.

[Mr. GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot

It is the hon. Gentleman's natural taciturnity that prevented him from telling us.

Sir D. Glover

That is the nicest thing the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has said to me in my many years in the House. I always felt that this wilting snowdrop did not wish to get mixed up in controversy across the Floor. This strange alliance is joining us together in wedlock and we shall never be cut asunder. It is the most enjoyable association that I have had in all the time I have been in the Chamber, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that generous remark. I am sure that he will now give me permission to be a little more verbose and not keep my remarks so sharply to the point.

In reply to the question of the hon. Member for West Ham or East Ham—East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet; I can never remember his seat—I feel that the Government should give an assurance that before the Bill becomes law they will ensure that there is written into it a provision that the number of Ministers in the reformed Second Chamber will not exceed the number of Ministers in the present unreformed Chamber.

Mr. Iremonger

There are 19.

Sir D. Glover

I seem to be under attack from a number of my hon. Friends speaking from a sedentary position.

Mr. Iremonger

If that is what is bothering my hon. Friend——

Sir D. Glover

I will willingly give way in a moment to my hon. Friend, whose opinions on these matters I always value greatly.

At present there are two Cabinet Ministers and 13 Ministers in another place. Of those 13, there are a great number of Whips and so on. One noble Minister is perpetually in exile to the United Nations, and another is not in exile but comes to the House only once every three months, and then tours the world. They are formal members of the other place.

I think that 15 of a Government of over 100 is about right. The Government should give an assurance to the Committee that if the Bill becomes law it will be their intention not to increase the number beyond that.

Mr. Iremonger

It was very kind of my hon. Friend to say that he had great respect for my opinions. It is not my opinion but the fact, as recorded in HANSARD, that there are 19 Ministers, as defined by the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act, in another place. I have here a list of them.

Hon. Members

Read them.

Mr. Iremonger

I might be out of order in reading them in an intervention, but I shall certainly amplify this later if I catch the eye of the Chair.

Sir D. Glover

If my hon. Friend will give me the list I will give the Committee the information, because up to now we have been debating the Amendment on the figure given by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who said that there were two Cabinet Ministers in the other place and 13 other Ministers. Now my hon. Friend says that there are 19 Ministers there. The Committee should get this clear. [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris)

Order. There is too much running conversation. The Committee must listen carefully to what is said so that I can also hear whether it is in order.

Mr. Sheldon

The figures I gave were for November, 1968, in the White Paper at that time. They could well have changed subsequently.

Sir D. Glover

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for putting the Committee correctly in the picture. We have presumably under this Government had some inflation since then. But I think the Committee had better get the authoritative figures published in the last issue of HANSARD, which came out last week.

The two members of the Cabinet are the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Then, according to the list I have got, we have the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.

Mr. Albert Murray (Gravesend)

On a point of order, Mr. Grant-Ferris. As a result of interventions there is now some discussion as to the number, but not who they are. Can you perhaps give the Committee some guidance? We will settle for whatever number the hon. Member says, without going through the list.

Mr. Roebuck

Further to that point of order, those of us who, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), have been most diligent in their attendance at this Committee are following the hon. Member's arguments with great care. It is extremely important that we should have the benefit of the information which he is giving to the Committee. I really think that the intervention of my hon. Friend, which is clearly designed to make these proceedings last a long time, ought to be deprecated.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The Committee can safely rely upon me to say what is in order or what is not in order, and to tell the hon. Member for Ormskirk if he is getting out of order.

Sir D. Glover

Seriously, I think the Committee, after this dispute between these two figures, has the right to know who these office-holders are and what sort of office they hold.

I finished with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The next is the Minister of State, Board of Trade, the noble Lord, Lord Brown. Then we have the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, the Baroness Serota.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir D. Glover

My hon. Friend really must contain himself. I am giving some very valuable information to the Committee, and provided that the Chair allows me to do this I propose letting the Committee have the information.

Then there is the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. Then we have in Housing and Local Government the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who is Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Then we have the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, who is Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Then we come to Her Majesty's Household, and this is where I disagree with the criticisms that have been made about there being too many.

In Her Majesty's Household we have the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, the Lord Chamberlain, Viscount Cobham, the Lord Steward, and the Duke of Beaufort, who is Master of the Horse. All three are in fact sinecures under the Crown.

Hon. Members

No, no.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. No salaries are attached to those offices, and therefore it would not be right to discuss them under this Amendment.

Sir D. Glover

That is the point I was trying to make, Mr. Grant-Ferris. The figure is therefore brought down somewhat, as the hon. Member for Aston-under-Lyne said. We have the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, and a whip; the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard, and a whip; the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, Lord in Waiting, and a whip; and the noble Ladies, Baroness Philips and Baroness Llewelyn-Davies, Baronesses in Waiting, and Whips. That is the total Government list in the other place, and if we take out those who have no pay——

Mr. Merlyn Rees

Perhaps I can intervene on a point of information. I have just been checking. Lord Cobbold, Lord Beaufort——

Sir D. Glover

The Duke of Beaufort.

Mr. Rees

The Duke of Beaufort. I was not brought up to know the difference between a duke and a lord except that they had their uses and that is about all. Lord Cobbold, the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Cobham are in the Royal Household and hold non-political offices. It would be wrong, therefore, to consider them in the context of this Bill. The Amendment is concerned with certain offices, and those offices include the Leader of the Conservative Party in the other place, who is paid, and the Conservative Chief Whip, who is also paid. They must be taken into account in considering the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he has not said anything that I disagree with. I was saying that the officers of the Royal Household were non-political figures and did not come within this legislation and are unpaid. I accept that the Opposition in the other place has some rights in this matter as well, and therefore I advocate that in the reformed Chamber the number of offices should be restricted to the present number.

Mr. Goodhart

rose—

Mr. Lubbock

rose—

Sir D. Glover

I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) first.

Mr. Goodhart

Is my hon. Friend quite sure that the names he has read out are still Ministers after the debate on the Euthanasia Bill and the voting which took place on it?

Sir D. Glover

Some of us think that this Bill is a Bill to "euthanise" the other place. I do not think that so far there have been any radical alterations. There is a lot of dead wood, but it is slumbering silently there.

Mr. John Wells

Could my hon. Friend go through this list again for the benefit of the Committee, pointing out the other offices of profit—and substantial ones—held by these various noble Lords? It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, formerly represented the National Union of Agricultural Workers in the House of Commons, [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Now——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. Gentleman should tell us about his employers.

Mr. Wells

Now he is a salaried member of a nationalised board.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The intervention of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is out of order. The hon. Member for Ormskirk had best be allowed to continue his speech.

11.15 p.m.

Sir D. Glover

I welcome your ruling, Mr. Grant-Ferris, because I was going to say to my hon. Friend that I had no intention whatever of repeating the names. I thought the Committee ought to have got them. I read them at dictation speed. I was not in any way implying any wrong attitude to any one of those noble Lords. I was stating a fact.

Mr. Lubbock

I do not mean any disrespect to any noble Lord either, but since the hon. Member has tried to read out the names of those covered by the Measure, and as the Minister has told us that the Leader of the Tory Party and the Chief Whip in the Lords are to receive salaries, would he be good enough to give the Committee the names of those noble Lords, and since a limit has been placed on the financial implications, would he let us know how much these noble Lords receive in the form of salary?

Sir D. Glover

I do not think that I should help the hon. Member. [Interruption.] Of course the Leader of the Tory Party in the Lords is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—[Interruption.] I was asked some considerable time ago what was my view of the hon. Member's Amendment. He had shown that the number of officers should be restricted to four, and I did not agree. I said we should not cavil and bind the other place to that extent.

I was asked by the hon. Member—and it is a miracle that I can still remember the hon. Member's question—what did I think? I said that in my view, as the official objective of this reform was to make a Chamber that was more viable and efficient and not more powerful, the right solution would be to restrict the number of officers in the Lords to the present number. I added that the Government should tell the Committee whether they accepted the hon. Member's Amendment or whether they had any alternative. At present, in its controlled form, the Bill has people clocking in and out and getting "phoney" doctors' certificates to be absent on sick leave without losing their pay.

Mr. Roebuck

Could the hon. Gentleman clarify one point about Ministerial posts in the Lords? Is he advocating a change in the existing convention by which certain Ministers are not allowed to sit in the Lords? For instance, there is the convention, certainly on this side of the Committee, that the Foreign Secretary should never sit in the Lords——

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I am afraid that all of that is out of order.

Sir D. Glover

I do not want to get into this involved argument. As a general principle, I accept that the major Officers of State should be in this elected Chamber. I would not like Parliament to get itself into such a rigid state that it would never make an exception. One of the best Foreign Secretaries we have had for a long time was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) when he was in another place. I know that some hon. Members opposite do not agree, but I think that he was a very good Foreign Secretary. Parliament would be weakened if it laid down a hard and fast rule, which would render innovation impossible. A noble Lord might be the only person for a particular job.

The whole working of the Parliamentary system has gained a great deal because of its fluidity. One of my main objections to this Bill is the rigidity that it will bring to our Parliamentary machine. It is not going to improve our constitutional position, and it is because of that fact that I hope the Government will give us a very much clearer idea of what is its idea of Ministerial representation in the other place.

The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has highlighted the fact that the Committee should have the constitutional duty—yes, duty—to discuss this matter, for, let us not forget, we are trying to build up the Parliamentary machine. It is not, perhaps, the most important part of that machine; not, perhaps, the part with the most power, but if ever we bring this Bill into law, then it will be found that we shall have to have an amending Bill within 18 months and another after that. After all, it has taken sixty years for a Bill even to get into this Committee to deal with the other place, and we must get this present Bill as right in every respect as we possibly can before it leaves us. We must not forget that it is going to affect us for a very long time in the future. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has done a service to the nation in bringing forward his Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I have listened for half an hour to the hon. Member and he has not once said what is the position of his own Front Bench in respect of this Bill. Would he give us some idea?

Sir D. Glover

I do not think that that interjection was awfully helpful. I was in the middle of my peroration, and perhaps the hon. Member did not realise that I had reached a great crescendo in a speech which will go down in history. I am not going to be drawn at this hour of the night.

I say that we have a real responsibility. We are dealing with a great constitutional issue. A lot of people may think that we are filibustering for the sake of filibustering, but that is not true. This is an evil Bill, and it is our duty to fight it. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has really done a magnificent job. The whole Committee should give him a vote of thanks for what he has done, and he is entitled to some reasonable explanation from the Government of what is its view about his Amendment.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of the Committee be suspended.—[Mr. Concannon.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 51.

Division No. 143.] AYES [10.1 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Archer, Peter Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, John (Aberavon)
Beaney, Alan Hannan, William Murray, Albert
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Neal, Harold
Bishop, E. S. Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Ogden, Eric
Blackburn, F. Haseldine, Norman O'Malley, Brian
Boston, Terence Hazell, Bert Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Boyden, James Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bradley, Tom Hooley, Frank Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Brooks, Edwin Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Pentland, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Howie, W. Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Price, William (Rugby)
Buchan, Norman Hunter, Adam Probert, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hynd, John Rees, Merlyn
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Cant, R. B. Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Carmichael, Neil Jones, Dan (Burnley) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Coe, Denis Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Concannon, J. D. Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Rowlands, E.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Judd, Frank Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lawson, George Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dalyell, Tam Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Julius
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lestor, Miss Joan Skeffington, Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Small, William
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Dempsey, James Lomas, Kenneth Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Loughlin, Charles Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Dobson, Ray Luard, Evan Tuck, Raphael
Doig, Peter Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Urwin, T. W.
Dunnett, Jack McBride, Neil Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Eadie, Alex McCann, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Wallace, George
Ellis, John MacColl, James Watkins, David (Consett)
English, Michael Macdonald, A. H. Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Ennals, David Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Wellbeloved, James
Ensor, David Maclennan, Robert Whitaker, Ben
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Wilkins, W. A.
Fernyhough, E. McNamara, J. Kevin Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Finch, Harold Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Manuel, Archie Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Ford, Ben Marks, Kenneth Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Forrester, John Marquand, David Winnick, David
Fowler, Gerry Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Garrett, W. E. Millan, Bruce
Gregory, Arnold Miller, Dr. M. S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Grey, Charles (Durham) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Mr. Charles Morris and
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Maude, Angus
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Barnes, Michael Glover, Sir Douglas Mawby, Ray
Bell, Ronald Goodhart, Philip More, Jasper
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Goodhew, Victor Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gurden, Harold Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Bullus, Sir Eric Harvie Anderson, Miss Neave, Airey
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Hay, John Newens, Stan
Clark, Henry Heffer, Eric S. Norwood, Christopher
Clegg, Walter Hooson, Emlyn Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Crouch, David Iremonger, T. L. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Dalkeith, Earl of Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Pym, Francis
Driberg, Tom Kitson, Timothy Quennell, Miss J. M.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Lee, John (Reading) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Eyre, Reginald Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Ridsdale, Julian
Farr, John Lubbock, Eric Russell, Sir Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles MacArthur, Ian Sharples, Richard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Marten, Neil Sheldon, Robert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) Wright, Esmond
Smith, John (London & W'minster) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Steel, David (Roxburgh) Ward, Dame Irene TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) Wells, John (Maidstone) Mr. John Ryan and
Temple, John M. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William Mr. Roy Roebuck.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Division No. 144.] AYES [11.23 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Fowler, Gerry Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Archer, Peter Fraser, John (Norwood) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Garrett, W. E. Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Gregory, Arnold Morris, John (Aberavon)
Beaney, Alan Grey, Charles (Durham) Murray, Albert
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Neal, Harold
Bishop, E. S. Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Malley, Brian
Blackburn, F. Hamling, William Oram, Albert E.
Booth, Albert Hannan, William Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Boyden, James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bradley, Tom Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Haseldine, Norman Pentland, Norman
Brooks, Edwin Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hooley, Frank Price, William (Rugby)
Buchan, Norman Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Probert, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Howie, W. Rees, Merlyn
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hoy, James Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Cant, R. B. Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Carmichael, Neil Hunter, Adam Robertson, John (Paisley)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hynd, John Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Coe, Denis Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Rowiands, E.
Dalyell, Tam Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Judd, Frank Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Leadbitter, Ted Silverman, Julius
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Small, William
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lomas, Kenneth Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Loughlin, Charles Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Dell, Edmund Lubbock, Eric Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Dempsey, James Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Tinn, James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John McBride, Neil Urwin, T. W.
Doig, Peter McCann, John Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack MacColl, James Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Eadie, Alex Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackie, John Watkins, David (Consett)
Ellis, John Maciennan, Robert Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
English, Michael McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Whitaker, Ben
Ennals, David McNamara, J. Kevin Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Ensor, David Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Manuel, Archie Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Fernyhough, E. Marks, Kenneth Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Finch, Harokd Mendelson, John Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Millan, Bruce TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Ford, Ben Miller, Dr. M. S. Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Forrester, John Milne, Edward (Blyth) Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Heffer, Eric S. Percival, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Iremonger, T. L. Peyton, John
Chichester-Clark, R. Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Clegg, Walter Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Pym, Francis
Crouch, David Kitson, Timothy Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Dalkeith, Earl of Lee, John (Reading) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dickens, James Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Roebuck, Roy
Driberg, Tom Marten, Neil Russell, Sir Ronald
Farr, John Maude, Angus Sheldon, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) More, Jasper Steet, David (Roxburgh)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Ward, Dame Irene
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Glover, Sir Douglas Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Goodhart, Philip Neave, Airey TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Gurden, Harold Norwood, Christopher Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Hay, John Orme, Stanley Mr. Michael Alison.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Committee report Proceedings suspended.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended:

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 45.

Division No. 145.] AYES [11.32 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Fraser, John (Norwood) Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)
Archer, Peter Garrett, W. E. Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Gregory, Arnold Morris, John (Aberavon)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Grey, Charles (Durham) Murray, Albert
Beaney, Alan Griffiths Eddie (Brightside) Neal, Harold
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Malley, Brian
Bishop, E. S. Hamling, William Oram, Albert E.
Blackburn, F. Hannan, William Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Boyden, James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Bradley, Tom Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Haseldine, Norman Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brooks, Edwin Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Pentland, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hooley, Frank Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Buchan, Norman Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Price, William (Rugby)
Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn) Howie, W. Probert, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hoy, James Rees, Merlyn
Cant, R. B. Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Carmichael, Neil Hunter, Adam Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Hynd, John Robertson, John (Paisley)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Coe, Denis Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Concannon, J. D. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Rowlands, E.
Dalyell, Tam Judd, Frank Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'C'tle-u-Tyne)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Leadbitter, Ted Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Julius
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lomas, Kenneth Small, William
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Loughlin, Charles Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Lubbock, Eric Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Dell, Edmund Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Dempsey, James McBride, Neil Tinn, James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John McCann, John Urwin, T. W.
Doig, Peter MacColl, James Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Eadie, Alex Mackie, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Maclennan, Robert Watkins, David (Consett)
Ellis, John McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
English, Michael McNamara, J. Kevin Whitaker, Ben
Ennals, David Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Ensor, David Manuel, Archie Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Marks, Kermeth Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Fernyhough, E. Mendeison, J. J. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Finch, Harold Millan, Bruce Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ford, Ben Milne, Edward (Blyth) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Forrester, John Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Mr. Ivan L Evans and
Fowler, Gerry Mr. Joseph Harper
NOES
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Iremonger, T. L. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Pym, Francis
Chichester-Clark, R. Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Clegg, Walter Kitson, Timothy Rhys Wiliams, Sir Brandon
Crouch, David Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Roebuck, Roy
Dalkeith, Earl of Marten, Neil Russell, Sir Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Maude, Angus Sheldon, Robert
Eyre, Reginald Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Farr, John More, Jasper Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm. Ward, Dame Irene
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Glover, Sir Douglas Neave, Airey Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Goodhart, Philip Norwood, Christopher TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Gurden, Harold Percival, Ian Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Hay, John Peyton, John Mr. Michael Alison
Back to