HC Deb 18 February 1969 vol 778 cc335-52

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed. That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Before I was so dramatically asked to cease speaking, I raised very important constitutional issues with both Front Benches. I hope that we shall have an answer from both of them. Profound matters of constitutional importance are involved. The Preamble gives all power to the Executive but defines, it in no way. Also involved is the question of control of patronage.

I agree about the problems concerning the use of the Privy Council which will come before the Privy Council and the House of Commons. I cannot agree with the proponents of the Amendment that what they suggest would be a satisfactory method of dealing with the matter. After all, who will guard the guardians—quis custodiat, etc., if I may coin a phrase. But once we have set up the system of patronage—and, as other Members have shown, a system of patronage essential to make this proposed system work at all, which is the most sinister side of the proposal—there is no way in which it can be checked.

I do not suppose that we shall have in this country the sort of things which happen in some South American states from which I have recently returned. The dictator Perez Jimenez of Venezuela had a great regard for constitutional matters. Nowadays, the more sophisticated dictators have a great regard for constitutional matters. They make great play with the local privy councils and elections. They make great appeals to the country. They impress journalists. Doubtless they impress many Members of our own House of Commons. But, in spite of all the talk of constitutional safeguards, Perez Jimenez could ensure that his cook and his wife's hairdresser were elected to the senate. Perhaps Perez Jimenez had a very good cook and his wife had an excellent hairdresser. They probably were better than some of the stooges who will be appointed tinder this Bill by the Front Benches. But the fact is that there is no means of checking this type of patronage. To involve the Privy Council in it would, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, merely sully that otherwise admirable institution and make matters worse.

Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, and as other hon. Members who oppose the Bill have said—and 90 per cent. of backbench Members oppose it—hour by hour it is being shown that this is a Bill which will not work, a Bill which should never have been put forward, a Bill that should be rejected, a Bill which we should block, a Bill which should be defied and a Bill which could be a real danger to our constitutional liberties. As gloom and despondency grow throughout the Chamber about the evils which could be perpetrated as a result of the Bill, we want a baring of the heart by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and a speech of great depth and weight from the Leader of the House to explain how they dare put forward such a constitutional instrument which is totally unexplained and a Preamble which is totally undefined and at the same time to make proposals by which the danger and evil of patronage can be checked when the Bill comes into force.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Peart

We have had a long and interesting debate. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is a time when we must make a decision, and I hope that soon after I have spoken the Committee may decide on these Amendments.

Mr. John Mendelson rose—

Mr. Peart

I have only just started my speech.

Mr. Mendelson

I intervene not on the issue, but on the announcement which my right hon. Friend has made. He is, I know, a very courteous man. Will not he allow the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to take part in the debate before it is concluded?

Mr. Peart

I am making my own speech and I would have thought that what I am about to say will be helpful and may change the opinions of hon. Members who have made contributions, although I detected in the speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) an attitude which reflects a rigid position; in other words, I do not believe that whatever I say tonight will convert him.

I thought that the right hon. Member was being rather gloomy, although he does not normally look gloomy. I understand his point of view, which he has argued so vigorously tonight and previously, and that point of view is shared by many hon. Members who have spoken on both sides of the Committee. We have had some extremely interesting and effective speeches from the point of view of the right hon. Member.

I thought that the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was a model. I do not say that in a patronising sense. It was a very effective speech from his point of view, but I disagree with it fundamentally. He had a formidable ally in my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). This was a united front of the Right and either Left or Liberal. I am not sure which, but together they argued very forcefully from their point of view, although the speeches were the sort of speeches made on Second Reading. However, I will try to reply to some points which have been raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale asked me about the Preamble, which is dealt with in one of the Amendments. His plea was reinforced by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). I do not claim to be a legal expert, but I get good legal advice. I assume that my hon. Friend is not a legal expert, but he speaks with great distinction since he is a distinguished Parliamentarian. The Government took advice in the preparation of the Bill and the advice which I have had is that this is not unusual, there are precedents—and I will give them—in relation to the use of the Preamble in this way.

The Preamble summarises the main purposes which the Bill is intended to achieve: the exclusion of future peers by succession, and the establishment of a two-tier structure comprising voting and non-voting peers. The Preamble deals with the reduction in the number of bishops with seats in the House, the change in powers relating to Public Bills and the reduction in powers relating to subordinate legislation. It also refers to the White Paper and, in particular, to those aspects of the scheme which would be based not on statute but on the Prerogative, namely, the need to secure among the voting members a suitable balance between the political parties and a suitable number of peers with knowledge of and experience in matters which are of special concern to the various nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and indeed the Amendment recognises this.

I say to my hon. Friend, to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members on both sides who have raised this that these are not suitable matters for enactment. But it is useful to give that statutory recognition as forming the background against which the substantive Clauses are enacted—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose

Mr. Birch

Give way.

Mr. Peart

It is not for the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) to tell me when and to whom to give way. I am always prepared to give way to an hon. Member who is courteous. I will give way to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am obliged to the Leader of the House. He has just used the same expression as the Prime Minister did on Second Reading. What does he mean by "statutory recognition"?

Mr. Peart

As I have just said, the Preamble summarises the main purposes of the Bill, and again as I have said these are not suitable for enactment. But it is useful to give them statutory recognition as forming the background against which the substantive Clauses are en-enacted. Moreover, though the use of a Preamble has been discontinued in recent times, it is still thought appropriate for Bills of great constitutional importance.

If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at page 515 of Erskine May, he will see it spelt out there: The purpose of a preamble is to state the reasons and intended effects of the proposed legislation. I will not read it in full, but the precedents are given. Among them are the Parliament Bill, 1911, and many others since then. On the legal advice which the Government have been given from constitutional experts, there is nothing unusual in this. The precedents are there.

If, at a later stage, right hon. and hon. Members would like my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to make a statement on the matter, I will ask him to consider doing so. On the advice that I have been given, this is not unusual. As I say, the precedents are there.

Mr. John Hall

The right hon. Gentleman's quotation from Erskine May has confused the Committee even more. What he is saying is that Erskine May has pointed out that it is quite usual to describe the purpose of a Bill in a Preamble. However, this Preamble goes further than that. The right hon. Gentleman himself says that it gives statutory recognition to certain matters. What is the difference to the ordinary layman between statutory recognition and the enactments in a Statute? Why cannot the matters in the Preamble be enacted in a Statute?

Mr. Peart

I hope that the hon Gentleman will read what I have said. If there is any doubt about the position, I will ask my right hon and learned Friend to advise the Committee.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet)

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I raised this point specifically on Second Reading and asked the Attorney-General to advise us. I think that this is a matter which needs the advice of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Peart

I have just had a word with my right hon. and learned Friend, and he will be only too pleased to make a statement—[HON. MEMBERS: '"When?"] He would like time to consider the matter, and will make a statement about it when an opportunity presents itself.

Mr. Birch

The point is whether he makes a statement at the right moment. What worries right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is that the Preamble has no legal effect, as we understand it. I had hoped that it would have been possible to write the White Paper into the Bill, and in an Amendment which I have tabled I have done that, on what might be thought to be the evil precedent of what was done in the case of the last Prices and Incomes Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my Amendment, which will provide some limitation?

Mr. Peart

The right hon. Gentleman is very persuasive, but I cannot accept his Amendment. I hope that he will await my right hon. and learned Friend's statement at a later stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tonight?"] No, not tonight. In view of what has been said, he would like time to give the matter more consideration. I hope that hon. Members will allow me to deal with the Amendment that has been moved.

Mr. Powell

Are we to gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government are still uncertain about the legal effect of the Preamble? That would appear to follow from what the right hon. Gentleman said about his right hon. and learned Friend requiring more time.

Mr. Peart

I am not saying that. On the legal advice which I have had from experts I have made a statement which I think sums up the reply to the point. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press me more at this stage. I will do all that I can to help—[Interruption.]

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving)


Mr. Robert Cooke rose

The Chairman

Mr. Robert Cooke.

Mr. Cooke

Perhaps I could briefly explore further the mind of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Peart

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was interrupting me.

Mr. Cooke

On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman had sat down. Nothing was happening, so I got up to make my speech.

The Chairman

I was calling the hon. Member for an intervention.

Mr. Peart

The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), in moving the Amendment, raised many matters which have been discussed. Indeed, I recognise the underlying intention of Amendment No. 140, in particular. To deal with the view that he put forward, which has been accepted, the intention underlying the Amendment is in reality still to preserve the hereditary peerage in the reformed House of Lords. The method proposed is to allow the Crown to appoint peers by succession as Lords of Parliament.

I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said about the origin of this. It is extremely interesting to recognise that it goes right back into our history. Therefore, it is not something new. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made an extremely historical argument and developed it very well.

The method proposed is to allow the Crown to appoint peers by succession as Lords of Parliament after consultation with an advisory committee of the Privy Council. This is what new Clause 19 seeks to do. We have had many arguments today on the status of the Privy Council. I think that the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) elaborated on this point. We in no way seek to harm it. It still serves an important function. I should be out of order if I sought to develop that argument fully. But we all recognise the part that it plays. Nevertheless, the argument put forward is that, if we have this method, inevitably we will perpetuate patronage. Those appointed would not, however, be voting peers unless Clause 2(1) and Clause 3 were also amended, since these require voting peers to be peers of first creation.

The suggestion for some continuing connection between the hereditary peerage and the reformed House of Lords did find support from some hon. Gentlemen opposite on a previous occasion when the matter was discussed. I recall, in particular, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). It has had over a period of time, even before this, considerable support from many people in another place, and it cuts right across all the major parties. The case was put very persuasively by Lord Denham, who in another place urged it on the grounds of continuity.

The point has again been raised effectively this evening—the need to include ordinary men and women in a House so eminent to prevent it as a meritocracy suffering from an exaggerated idea of its own importance, and as a means of preventing friction between the two tiers, and so as to prevent the House from becoming too political. This is a strong argument, and it is right that it should be considered. I make no complaint about those who have argued vigorously, and perhaps repeated some of the arguments.

It may be argued that the Amendment would enable, for example, peers who are young to become members of the reformed House of Lords and to serve a useful apprenticeship which would fit them for appointment as voting peers subsequently. I have to tell the Committee that the Amendment is unacceptable in principle because it conflicts with one of the primary objectives of the reform, namely, that the hereditary basis of membership of the House of Lords should be eliminated. This is spelt out in paragraph 5 of the White Paper.

It is true that under the proposed Amendment non-voting Lords of Parliament will not have any direct political power, but, nevertheless, such an arrangement would continue to give a privileged position to those who by accident of birth become members of the hereditary peerage. In the future, if peers by succession are suitable for elevation to the second Chamber they can be created peers, in the same way as any other citizen can be. I take the view that the proposal is not fair, and is not democratic.

The argument that I have used about the desire to preserve the hereditary peerage relates to Amendment No. 139, too. This Amendment further suggests that it should be a matter for consideration whether a certain proportion of the Chamber should be chosen on a regional basis. This has been argued strongly by right hon. and hon. Members. The wording of the Amendment is taken from the agreed statement at the conclusion of the conference of party leaders on the Parliament Bill of 1947, but that statement has been amended to suit the purposes of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). Certain words have been added, and I do not think that I am doing the right hon. and learned Member an injustice when I say that certain words have been emphasised. Subparagraph (c) of the Amendment says: … but a certain proportion of the Chamber should be taken from the hereditary peerage. The effect of these Amendments would be to misrepresent what had been agreed in 1948 when the party leaders agreed provisionally neither to a partial regional reformed second Chamber, nor to one containing a proportion of members taken from the hereditary peerage. The new Clause suggests that those who have added their names to it wish to set aside the degree of inter-party agreement reached at a conference in 1967 and 1968, and to substitute the provisional agreement on composition reached in 1948.

I think that it is important to put this right. The provisional agreement reached in 1948, misquoted in the Amendment, follows this statement: If it had been possible to achieve general agreement over the whole field of powers and composition, the party representatives would have been prepared to give the following proposals further consideration so as to see whether the necessary details could be worked out, and if so to submit them as part of such an agreement to their respective parties. The objection in principle to these Amendments is that they conflict with the primary objective of reform, namely, that the hereditary basis of membership of the House of Lords should be eliminated.

With regard to the possibility of some regional election, the arguments against a reformed second Chamber based in this way are given in paragraph 23 of the White Paper. Speaking for the Government, I can say that we attach great importance to the presence in the reformed House of members who can speak with authority on the problems of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England. This is mentioned in Paragraph 50. We have said that if the proposed Commission on the Constitution … leads to changes which would make practicable or desirable new methods of securing the presence of members with knowledge of the various parts and regions of the United Kingdom these methods could be introduced at a later date. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) sought in his new Clause to create peers only for the duration of such number of Parliaments. He is trying to reconcile the need for the reformed House to contain a number of younger members with the need for a sufficient number to retire at the end of each Parliament to make way for the new creations which would be needed in the event of a change of Government.

I have great sympathy with his point of view, but, in the end, it conflicts with two principles of the scheme. First, it is a central feature that a peer, once created, remains a Member for the rest of his life and can be a voting Member until he reaches the age of retirement. This feature is essential to preserve his independence and to prevent an unacceptable increase in the powers of patronage, the power to create temporary peers, a temporary membership, which would allow the Prime Minister of the day to nominate Members who would, in effect, be on probation, with a view to a permanent peerage or an extended period of membership if he found them satisfactory. A Clause of this kind, therefore, would provide opportunities for patronage which many right hon. and hon. Members attacked strongly, and beside which those already in the scheme would appear insignificant.

Second, the scheme makes no distinction between a voting and a non-voting peerage. The choice between voting and non-voting membership is to be made by the peer himself in the light of his own inclination and commitments and the choice must be unfettered except for the age and attendance requirements. The reasons are partly to prevent non-voting Members from being regarded as second-rate Members and partly to allow a peer to choose for himself the type of membership which he prefers at different periods. This is right, and for these reasons I would have to resist—

Mr. English

The first reason which my right hon. Friend gave is unanswerable, but the second does not stand up. A peer for a number of Parliaments would be just as much a peer of first creation as a life peer or a hereditary peer.

Mr. Peart

I still believe that my two fundamental arguments are correct.

Sir L. Heald

I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to accuse me unfairly, but I understood him to suggest that I had imported the idea of the hereditary peers becoming Lords of Parliament without quoting the 1948 agreement correctly. He has, I think, overlooked paragraph 4(4), which said: Members of the Second Chamber should be styled 'Lords of Parliament'. … They might be drawn from Hereditary peers or from commoners …

Mr. Peart

I accept that, but my fundamental argument was that the hon. and and learned Gentleman's series of Amendments will still preserve the hereditary principle. Both Amendment No. 139 and Amendment No. 140 would do so. This is why the Government cannot accept them. I hope that, for these reasons, the Committee will reject the Amendments.

Mr. William Deedes (Ashford)

The right hon. Gentleman will observe that Amendment No. 139 supplants the Preamble to the Bil. Therefore, before we are asked to vote on it, can he assure us that the Attorney-General will give us some guidance on the Preamble?

Mr. Peart

I thought that I had made my position clear. As I said, I would like the Committee to reach a decision; and, if necessary, my right hon. and learned Friend could make a statement later.

Mr. Maudling

I must take up with the right hon. Gentleman the point which arose earlier in his remarks. As he and the Committee will be aware, I believe that an agreed reform of the Upper House on these lines would be to the benefit of Parliament. However, while this is an agreed Measure, the Government have always made it clear that they have put forward this legislation on their own responsibility, and, therefore, an explanation of the matter rests on the Government.

This point has been giving very great concern to my hon. Friends. I deliberately raised it on Second Reading. It is a fundamental point which was made relevant by the Prime Minister's use of the phrase "statutory recognition" on Second Reading. I questioned and challenged it then and it has been challenged since. It underlines all that is going on now.

We must, therefore, have from the Attorney-General—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is present and presumably he is competent to do this—the explanation which we have long sought: what is meant by "statutory recognition"? Until we know that, we cannot proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order. Would I be in order, Mr. Irving, in moving at this stage, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again? This would, I suggest, be a convenient moment to discuss this course, since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that, to proceed with the Bill, it would be possible—he said "possible", but many of us think this is essential—for the Attorney-General to make a statement.

The question of the Preamble concerns a whole series of matters. It would be

much better if we could take this business at the beginning of our proceedings tomorrow morning, since this question touches many other matters. While it is unlikely that the Attorney-General could produce a satisfactory statement, we should receive one from him, and that would be convenient for the Committee.

Mr. Peart

There is some substance in what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale says. I think that a statement should be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement tomorrow.

I beg to move, That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended.

Several Hon. Members rose

The Chairman


Mr. Maudling rose

The Chairman

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to put the Question.

Mr. Maudling rose

The Chairman

Order. I am bound by the Standing Order to put the Question forthwith. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Maudling

On the reading of the Motion—

The Chairman

Order. I cannot allow that. I am bound by the Standing Order.

The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 46.

Division No. 73.] AYES [10.40 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Concannon, J. D. Ellis, John
Archer, Peter Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard English, Michael
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Ensor, David
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dalyell, Tam Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Bence, Cyril Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Faulds, Andrew
Blackburn, F. Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Fernyhough, E.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Finch, Harold
Booth, Albert Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Boyden, James Davies, Ifor (Gower) Forrester, John
Brooks, Edwin Dempsey, James Freeson, Reginald
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Galpern, Sir Myer
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Doig, Peter Gardner, Tony
Buchan, Norman Dunn, James A. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum) Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Cant, R. B. Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carmichael, Neil Eadie, Alex Gregory, Arnold
Coleman, Donald Edwards, William (Merloneth) Grey, Charles (Durham)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) MacColl, James Probert, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) MacDermot, Niall Rees, Merlyn
Hannan, William Macdonald, A. H. Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Harper, Joseph McGuire, Michael Rhodes, Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Haseldine, Norman Mackie, John Rose, Paul
Henig, Stanley Mackintosh, John P. Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Hilton, W. S. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Rowlands, E.
Hooley, Frank McNamara, J. Kevin Ryan, John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Manuel, Archie Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Howie, W. Marks, Kenneth Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hoy, James Mendelson, John Silverman, Julius
Huckfield, Leslie Millan, Bruce Small, William
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Miller, Dr. M. S. Spriggs, Leslie
Hunter, Adam Milne, Edward (Blyth) Thornton, Ernest
Hynd, John Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Tinn, James
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Urwin, T. W.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.) Moyle, Roland Watkins, David (Consett)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Murray, Albert Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Ogden, Eric Wellbeloved, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) O'Malley, Brian Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Oram, Albert E. White, Mrs. Eirene
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Orbach, Maurice Whitlock, William
Judd, Frank Oswald, Thomas Wilkins, W. A.
Kelley, Richard Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Williams. Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Kenyon, Clifford Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Lawson, George Palmer, Arthur Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Parker, John (Dagenham) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Lestor, Miss Joan Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Pentland, Norman Mr. John McCann and
Loughlin, Charles Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Mr. Neil McBride.
Luard, Evan Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Hay, John Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Russell, Sir Ronald
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Hooson, Emlyn Sharples, Richard
Bessell, Peter Kimball, Marcus Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Lancaster, Col. C. G. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Langford-Holt, Sir John Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Maude, Angus Tilney, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Bullus, Sir Eric Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Ward, Dame Irene
Cooke, Robert Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Weatherill, Bernard
Crouch, David Neave, Airey Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Osborn, John (Hallam) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Percival, Ian
Farr, John Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Mr. John Biggs-Davison and
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Gresham Cooke, R. Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Committee report Proceedings suspended.

Motion made, and 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 163, Noes 38.

Division No. 74.] AYES [10.51 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Brooks, Edwin Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Archer, Peter Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Buchan, Norman Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Bence, Cyril Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum) Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Cant, R. B. Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Bessell, Peter Carmichael, Neil Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Blackburn, F. Coleman, Donald Dempsey, James
Blenkinsop, Arthur Concannon, J. D. Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Booth, Albert Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Doig, Peter
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Cullen, Mrs. Alice Dunn, James A.
Boyden, James Dalyell, Tam Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'h'n&St.P'cras, S.) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Eadie, Alex Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Palmer, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Ellis, John Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
English, Michael Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Ensor, David Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Pentland, Norman
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Judd, Frank Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred Kelley, Richard Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Faulds, Andrew Kenyon, Clifford Probert, Arthur
Fernyhough, E. Lawson, George Rees, Merlyn
Finch, Harold Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Lestor, Miss Joan Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Forrester, John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Freeson, Reginald Loughlin, Charles Rose, Paul
Galpern, Sir Myer Luard, Evan Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Gardner, Tony MacColl, James Rowlands, E.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) MacDermot, Niall Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Macdonald, A. H. Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Gregory, Arnold McGuire, Michael Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Silverman, Julius
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Small, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mackie, John Spriggs, Leslie
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mackintosh, John P. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hannan, William McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Thornton, Ernest
Harper, Joseph McNamara, J. Kevin Tinn, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Urwin, T. W.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Manuel, Archie Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Haseldine, Norman Marks, Kenneth Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Henig, Stanley Mendelson, John Watkins, David (Consett)
Hilton, W. S. Millan, Bruce Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Hooley, Frank Miller, Dr. M. S. Wellbeloved, James
Hooson, Emlyn Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) White, Mrs. Eirene
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Whitlock, William
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Wilkins, W. A.
Howie, W. Moyle, Roland Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Hoy, James Murray, Albert Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Huckfield, Leslie Ogden, Eric Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) O'Malley, Brian Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Hunter, Adam Oram, Albert E.
Hynd, John Orbach, Maurice TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Oswald, Thomas Mr. John McCann and
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Mr. Neil McBride.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gresham Cooke, R. Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hay, John Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hill, J. E. B. Russell, Sir Ronald
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Sharples, Richard
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Langford-Holt, Sir John Tilney, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Ward, Dame Irene
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Weatherill, Bernard
Cooke, Robert Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Crouch, David Neave, Airey Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Percival, Ian TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Farr, John Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Mr. John Biggs-Davison and
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Mr. Victor Goodhew.