HC Deb 19 February 1969 vol 778 cc601-33

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Sir D. Glover

When we were interrupted I was explaining my preamble. I pointed out that there were three courses which the House could take on the question of the other place. One was to have an elected Chamber, the second was to leave well alone—

Mr. Robert Cooke

On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I find it difficult to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) because of the deal of noise going on on the bench behind me.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Perhaps the Committee will hear the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in silence.

Sir D. Glover

I presume that, at some time, the Committee will be disturbed by the noise of the cistern from the Liberal Bench. I come now to the main point of what I want to say.

I welcome the Amendment because it has a desirable objective—to produce a semi-independent element in the other place, divorced from the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. This has attracted me because, under the Bill as it stands, we shall have a very mysterious House of Lords. It will not have very much dignity nor much viability in the eyes of the nation. It will not enjoy the respect that the present Chamber has. It will lose a great deal of its authority on big subjects and it will lose on the breadth of its debates. This is because it will be a rather petty, unimportant Chamber almost entirely dominated by the executives of the two main parties.

But I cannot support the Amendment because, when one begins to appoint people to a legislative function because they represent narrow segments of our society, one immediately runs into great difficulties. The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), who is not in his place—

Mr. Howie

I am here.

Sir D. Glover

I said that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place. He is not in the place in which he usually is. He is moving slowly up the passage. I understand that he is ready to put in a bid.

The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), said, "We want politicians". I accept that. But I think that they both, rightly, avoided saying that the sort of politicians we want are not the politicians of a narrow segment. The head of the medical profession is a better fighting politician in medical affairs—

Mr. Robert Cooke

My hon. Friend will be aware that my father is President of the British Medical Association. I think that he has met my father and that he will agree that he is not a bitter partisan in any sense of the word and is not a strong Tory, Socialist, or anything else.

Sir D. Glover

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I willingly withdraw any reflection on his esteemed father. But from what he says, he seems to be a classic example of the cross benches. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is pushing a bit, but I think that his father is now at the head of the queue. I know my hon. Friend's father, who is a wonderful character. But I also know people who are in scientific or other specialist bodies and who, in those affairs, are more ruthless—

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

And tyrannical.

Sir D. Glover

—and more tyrannical than any body of politicians, even when they are debating across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Howie

I must object. The people the hon. Gentleman is referring to are extremely benign.

Sir D. Glover

The hon. Gentleman is equally making a case against the Amendment. If they are so benign that they have no views, they will not be much use in another place. If they are narrow partisans only, they will be very dangerous in another place. Both our arguments apply.

Mr. Howie

But they operate in a benign way.

Sir D. Glover

I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right, because some of the most ruthless of people are very benign. During the Inquisition, most of the inquisitors had tears running down their faces when condemning people to the stake. Those on the other side in the counter-Reformation also had tears running down their faces. They said, "This hurts us more than it hurts you." But they were still ruthless, and I think that it would be dangerous to have a large element in the other place who were only interested in narrow, sectional interests.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Would their Lordships be permanently in tears, like Lord Lundy?

Sir D. Glover

I do not want to be anti-sabbatical on Ash Wednesday.

We know from our experience that the expert is a dangerous person in our debates. We may be too polite to say so, but we always feel that he is speaking from a narrow point of view, perhaps with an axe to grind, and his views are not taken nearly as much notice of as those of a person speaking from general knowledge. We are always suspicious of experts.

In this Amendment it is suggested that we put people into this altered place—I will not say reformed, because it is an altered second Chamber not a reformed second Chamber. I am sure that we would be producing an even worse Chamber than the present Bill will produce if we put such people in. I cannot see this reformed Chamber working with any satisfaction, nor can I see it obtaining any respect from the nation, which is very important.

Subconsciously, both sides of the Committee feel that we should have tackled this problem to produce a viable second Chamber, respected and understood, on an elected basis. Instead, we are so hag-ridden by the history of the other place and our own history that we are terrified of building up a parallel power to ourselves. This is why the two Front Benches have come along with this wet alternative. They do not want any other power to control the Executive; they do not want to produce any machinery that can do so; they do not want any machinery that can give time for a decision of the House of Commons to be reconsidered by another Chamber elected on similar lines or with similar authority.

Because of this, we go along with this wet, insane absurdity called the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It is not a Parliament (No. 2) Bill, it is something that no one outside of a madhouse would have invented. We want to produce a façade to show that we still have a second Chamber, but it is not to have any influence—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

Sir D. Glover

I apologise. I know that I was treading rather widely, but it is difficult not to do so when one has such strong emotions. It is difficult, when one is dealing with an absurdity, not to keep saying so. I am sure that my hon. Friend moved this Amendment in an attempt to bring in something which would be a protection against patronage by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. In practice it would produce an even worse amalgam of people, a Chamber that would operate even less satisfactorily than under the present proposals. If it comes to a Division I regret that I shall not be able to support the Amendment.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South)

I ought to declare an interest in this group of Amendments, that of part paternity. Although I have listened with interest to criticisms made, I suggest that some hon. Members who have questioned whether these Amendments have any value are running in blinkers, and are not sufficiently aware of the needs of the moment. This Committee has changed in character since we began last week and it has turned into a constitutional conference. It probably should have been held elsewhere, in quite different circumstances. What has been good about it is that it has followed non-party lines and one would find it hard to define how Party bias has come into the speeches. Generally it has also been an extremely good-natured discussion, but it has been a singularly ill-organised one. I do not imply any criticism of the Chair, but I do criticise the way the Bill has been brought before Parliament.

When I rise to speak I am torn between being criticised for taking up the time of the Committee, and an anxiety to take this opportunity, which may be the only one for a long time, to exchange ideas with people who are seriously interested in constitutional reform, and in this basic reform which the Government have in mind. If the ideas behind this group of Amendments seem to be insufficiently worked out, it is because we have so far given insufficient consideration to the issues raised by the Bill. I hope to do something to rectify that.

The idea of the other place being made into a house of industry or a place where the professions and the arts can be represented is by no means new. It is already built in to the existing constitution of the other place. Many hon. Members have talked of the other place as though it were an exclusively hereditary body, but from early times the House of Lords has included people who were there by virtue of their profession or status and not because of heredity. I refer to the small and distinguished body of Law Lords and the Bishops.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Hamilton)

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a pity that there are no Spiritual Lords representing Scottish denominations?

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is a point with which I shall try to deal.

Already the development of our constitution has foreseen the need to get away from the hereditary principle and to bring into the House of Lords people who could speak for particular activities and bring gifts which were not necessarily found among people there by virtue of succession. All that we ask in these Amendments is that we should allow this trend to go further. It is obvious from what has been said by my hon. Friends that we are anxious to secure organic change and the natural development of the constitution. It is not out of place to refer to the fact that what we are recommending is already embodied in the constitution of the House of Lords. All that we ask is that we should explore the possibility of taking this trend further.

We are concerned here with a very big subject—the modernisation of Britain. It is not wrong that we should start by modernising what goes on in the Palace of Westminster. It is not difficult to see ways in which we could improve the functioning of the Palace of Westminster. If we were to take advice from work study experts about how we should conduct this particular debate, we could learn a great deal. However that may be, we are concerned with rectifying the faults in the constitution which have developed. It has got stuck. Insufficient has been done to allow the forces at work in the country to find their corresponding echo within this building. In other words, we have allowed ourselves to get out of date. The Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about that and these Amendments are a way of putting forward specific recommendations as to what we should do.

It is possibly impertinent for someone so recently elected to the House of Commons as myself to get up in front of such a distinguished body of Members and a surprisingly large representation on the Government Front Bench and put forward his point of view. But possibly it has this merit only, that the shades of the prison house have only recently begun to close round this particular Member. If I think back only a few months, I can still remember what it feels like to be a member of the general public and not to have the right to speak in this building

The composition of the House of Commons does not cover all the constituencies which it is necessary to represent if we are to embody within the Palace of Westminster everything that is best in British life. It is self-evident that our constitution brings to the House of Commons regional representatives because our constituencies are purely territorial. For that reason, I am not certain how far I am prepared to go along with the idea that in the other place as well there should be a large number of regional representatives. The danger of that is that we should turn it into an echo chamber of this one, whereas we want it to be able to make a contribution to the constitution which we are not able to make here. I do not use the term "constituencies" in the narrow sense of areas on the map defined by the Bounday Commission. I refer to groups in the electorate which have a voice, or should have a voice, and are able to contribute something of real value to our national life.

10.30 p.m.

I know that suggestions have been made from the Government Front Bench that certain hon. Members are trying to take up the time of the Committee in order to kill the Bill. I say, in all sincerity, that that is not true of myself. I acknowledge that there is a real need for a Bill, but not this one as it stands. I think that the Bill, with the good will of the Government, could still become a good one.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Amendment. He is getting a bit wide of it.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I am trying to attract the Government's attention to the need to take these Amendments seriously, because I do not think that they are showing any very clear signs of doing so yet. I trust, Mr. Gourlay, that you will allow me to pursue my argument.

What has gone wrong with the Bill? I think that inadequate thought and time has gone into its preparation and that a mistake has been made in that it has been evolved by a huddle of Front Benchers who have forgotten the necessity to take into account the opinion of their back benchers. I hope that the present situation may be a lesson that, on the back benches, too, we may wish to make a contribution, however inadequate, wrong-headed, or jejune.

I think, too, that one of the things that has gone fundamentally wrong with the Bill is that in the other place their Lordships have got used to carrying out their existing diminished functions. Therefore, the Bill that has emerged, in so far as their ideas have coloured it, has completely eliminated the body of thought which we have tried to incorporate in these Amendments. It seems that in the other place they have lost sight of what they should be doing and who they should be. I know that a number of peers were horrified at the thought that outsiders, as they see them—that is, people from the arts, industry, trade unions and so on—should be drafted in. I do not wish to make a pun, but I think that they need a wind of change. I should like to see these people drafted in.

We are presented now with a weak and inconsequent Bill which has two major deficiencies. First, it does not attempt to fill the gaps which are identifiable in our constitution. It is commonplace in the Press, but also in the country among people of influence and judgment, that there is a tremendous gap between politics and industry and commerce. There is a yawning chasm. People who feel that they have something to give in the trade unions, in industry, in commerce and in places of eminence in British public life, feel that they can no longer shout across the gap and make their voices heard in Westminster.

Mr. Lubbock

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that people outside in the trade unions, industry, commerce, the arts, technology and so on, would think us utterly mad to have spent so long on the Bill and to be contemplating spending many hours more on it?

Mr. Orme

The Liberals are party to it.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I do not think that any man of judgment would think the House of Commons was wrong to spend enough time over—

Mr. Maude

A major constitutional change.

Sir B. Rhys-Williams

I should like to adopt my hon. Friend's words. We must face the fact, even if we do not like it, that there has been a breakdown of communications within our democratic life. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who I know sees himself as a Tom Paine-ite and believes that unicameral government is likely to bring this country nearer to democracy than any other system; but he must put forward his own solution as to the way in which this chasm is to be bridged. Although I have listened with the greatest interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said today, I do not feel that he has put his genius to work to make a constructive suggestion which would do what we, in however inadequate a way, are trying to achieve by this group of Amendments.

I do not feel that democracy is being well served by the present organisation of the party system, and it is not only the revolting students who feel that their voices cannot get through to the Establishment. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree with me when I say that there is a deep sense of frustration and unease in the country generally, and that it is our primary duty in the House of Commons to do something about this and to make constructive suggestions.

The other problem to which the Bill ought to be addressing itself, but is not, is the breakdown of the honours system. It has now become a regular feature in the Press every New Year's day to write articles saying how contemptible the honours system has become.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member must try to relate his remarks more directly to the Amendment, and not to go as wide as he is doing at the moment.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

Mr. Gourlay, once again I implore you to be patient with me. I have not tried to contribute to the debate for anything like the length of time that some hon. Members have done, and if you will hear me out you will see that my remarks—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. In trying to explain to the Committee the reasons for his speech the hon. Member is wasting time.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

When I say that the honours system has broken down, I am regarding the peerage as one of the central features of it, and we are discussing who ought to be entitled to have the honour of sitting in the other place. I think that the honours system will become still more corrupt and more decrepit if the men who find their way to the other place are safe men, chosen because they will commit themselves in advance to follow the party line dictated from this House.

If the honours system is to be brought back—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. We are not discussing the honours system on this Amendment which deals with the election of people representing certain professions. I wish that the hon. Member would direct his remarks to that end.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I believe that in professional life the accolade of the peerage is one of the things for which men work. It is one of the things which motives a man to get a good name among his fellows in his profession, and I think that it is very important that our Constitution should recognise that natural feature. It is not disgraceful for a man to wish to want recognition from his fellows. I think that the accolade given by the Sovereign to people in public life—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. I must ask the hon. Member to have regard to the remarks of the Chair. We are discussing, not the honours system, but Amendment No. 182.

Mr. John Hall

On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Gourlay, whether you would give us some guidance. I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) was giving reasons why representatives of science, technology and the arts might be persuaded to go into the House of Lords. He was going through the whole background of this and suggesting that if we were to downgrade the honours system it would be difficult to get representatives of that kind who he considers are essential to the operation of the House of Lords. With great respect to your Ruling, that does not seem to be out of order.

Mr. Powell

Further to that point of order. I submit that the effect of these Amendments is to provide means whereby persons eminent in various walks of life might be members of the future reformed House of Lords. One reason why we are faced with this difficulty, and are considering these Amendments at all, is that there would not be the same use of patronage to confer peerages on such persons under the new system. I would therefore most respectfully suggest that that is the background to the Amendments which are being considered.

The Deputy Chairman

There is some substance in the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, although incidental references to those aspects may be made in the debate, to take them at great length is to abuse the rules of procedure.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I am anxious to abide by your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, so I shall not pursue those matters, though I had a good deal more to say about them.

I come now to what I describe as—in inverted commas—the "constituencies" which should be entitled, in my view, either to elect people or to suggest people for the other place. I shall go through the list briefly. I consider that the professional bodies ought to be represented in the Palace of Westminster. They ought not to be obliged to go to public relations firms to make their voices heard in this building. I am thinking, for example, of the Royal Society, to which reference has already been made. I am thinking of the accountants, the engineers, to whom the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) quite properly referred. I think also of the surgeons, the architects, and so on. These are all people who are contributing in their own way to our national life. They are organised in professional "constituencies" which are recognised, but not at Westminster.

Mrs. Ewing

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should like him to explain whether, in mentioning those bodies, he means the Scottish and the English bodies separately or just the English bodies.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

Not knowing Scotland very well, I would rather leave it to the hon. Lady to speak for Scotland. I hope that she will. We shall be glad to hear her voice.

Mrs. Ewing

Not in favour of this proposition.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

There are industrial bodies which also ought to be represented. It is wrong that trade unionists should have to wait to come through the political gateway to make their way to the other House. This tends to lend a rather unfortunate political character to the trade union movement. It would be a good thing if the trade unions were able to disaffiliate themselves from the party machines which have taken charge in this House, and one of the surest ways of securing that end would be to give them the right of voice in Westminster in their own characters and not in the character of spokesmen of any particular party.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Should they vote as well as speak?

Sir B. Rhys Williams

On an earlier Amendment, I commented critically on the "voteless wonders", and I am certainly not one who considers that there should be a two-tier House. In making my recommendation as to who should be there, I add that they should be able to vote and be entire Members.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

At some time or other, somewhere or other, could we have it suggested that there should be some ordinary people in the other place? I am rather tired of experts.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion that the House of Lords ought not to consist entirely of people who are there with a particular interest. I consider that people with a particular interest and with particular gifts ought to be able to find their way to the House of Lords as of right, but one does not want to have it solely given over to experts. My hon. Friend will see that the text of our Amendments would not do that.

Mr. Ridley

As about half the population are female, perhaps half the membership of another place ought to be female, too.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

We have representatives of the other sex here who may be able to speak on that subject more effectively than I.

Mr. Russell Kerr

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this fascinating subject of the representation of the trade unions in another place, do I understand him to suggest a one-for-one representation for the professions and the trade unions?

10.45 p.m.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

That might result in a rather heavy representation of the trade unions in another place.

Mr. Russell Kerr

That is why I asked.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I have prepared some remarks, if I may be allowed to come to them, on the question of numbers, and I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point when I get there. [Laughter.] I am very glad, Mr. Gourlay, to notice that my remarks have not caused an outbreak of ill-temper in the Committee.

I have mentioned the industrial bodies and, in particular, the trade unions. It is right that some trade associations should also have a place in the other House. I am not talking only of the C.B.I., but of some of the semi-professional bodies and bodies representing small groups in industry which find it particularly difficult to make their voices heard here.

I mentioned earlier that there were bishops in the House of Lords. There should be other representatives of religious bodies, in recognition of the fact that the Church of England does not command the allegiance of the entire population. It would be perfectly proper for the Roman Catholic Church to be represented in the other place, the Nonconformists, the Presbyterians—

Mr. Robert Cooke

They are already.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

It may be that they are already, but will they be under the Bill? This is what I want reassurance about. It would be perfectly proper too for the Chief Rabbi automatically to find his place there.

Sir D. Glover

My hon. Friend will realise that if the Chief Rabbi goes to the other place the recent Race Relations Act means that the Moslems, the Hindus and everybody else must also be represented.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's observations, as I did not hear them.

Sir D. Glover

I was saying, Mr. Gourlay, and I hope my hon. Friend can hear me when I am addressing the Chair with my back to him, that if he wanted the Chief Rabbi in the other place as of right, under the Race Relations Act he would also have to ensure that the Moslems, the Hindus and the Parsees were also represented, otherwise he would be guilty of racial discrimination.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

If I were to advance further views on this subject, I might find myself on rather thin ice.

I would like now to discuss what we mean in the Amendment by representatives of the arts. I hope that you will not suggest I am out of order, Mr. Gourlay, if I say that the universities also should be able to find representation in the other place. I have never been able to find a reason why university members should have voices in the House of Commons, and that is not a recommendation which I would make; but I think it is wrong that they should be excluded from the other place. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."] They may not be now because the wisdom and maturity of our Constitution is such that we have found our way unconsciously to rectifying its faults, but, unfortunately, we are not finding our way to rectifying faults within the terms of the Bill.

The reason why I am taking up your time, Mr. Gourlay, and that of the Committee, is that I think the Bill should recognise what has been done so far which is good and, if we are seeking to codify the future of the House of Lords, let us codify what is good as well as what is experimental.

Perhaps I will awaken an echo in some parts of this Chamber when I refer also to journalism. Since journalists undoubtedly have much influence, perhaps they too should be represented in the other place. Likewise the public services. The Civil Service should not have to huddle silently in frustration listening to our debates without being able to contribute, except by the back stairs. There are men of great knowledge in our vast Civil Service. This knowledge should not be smothered under the two-party system. Representatives of the Armed Forces should also be in the House of Lords. They are now, but will they be in future?

We must not create another Chamber in our own likeness; a sort of echo chamber. It should of course contain a large number of people with political experience, but if we create an Upper House which is more or less like this one we shall simply be wasting square footage of valuable space. We must not allow it to become a sumptuous, over-decorated annexe of the House of Commons Library. I fear that if we do not write into the Bill the sort of people who should be there, we shall, within a few years, find the place inhabited by people who are subservient to the House of Commons and with virtually no power. With all his patronage, the Prime Minister will not be able to find people of the right calibre to serve under the humiliating conditions which the Bill will impose on them.

I have tried to adduce some constructive ideas. Because of the way in which the Amendments are drafted, this is inevitably a somewhat narrow debate, but I hope that by virtue of these suggestions the other place may once again become—in conjunction with this Chamber, for we must all work together in the same building—the best club in London.

Mr. John Hall

Is my hon. Friend aware that to make that possible it will be necessary to change the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee?

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I had an idea that that might be coming from one quarter of the House or another. But I am trying to be serious. I have an idea that I am the only person left in the Committee who is. There is more to a good club than what one eats in it. What one says and hears in it are probably worth a great deal more than what one eats and drinks in it.

In the course of the few months in which I have had the honour to be a Member of the House of Commons, I do not think I have spent 30 seconds in conversation with a member of the other place. It was only in order to to discover what their Lordships thought about the White Paper that I thought it necessary to acquire a copy of HANSARD recording their debates. I am sorry to say that I do not pay a very great deal of attention to what is reported in public broadcasts or in the newspapers about what is said in the other place. Already it has become largely irrelevant to the main issues of the day. I do not want that situation to continue. I should like the other place to be a place where things are said which are not said in this Chamber because they are said by people quite different from the Members of the House of Commons, then, in contact with them and by reading what they say, we should learn something fresh.

I should like to answer some of the points made in the debate. I do not think it necessary to leave it entirely to the bodies from which we hope to draw representatives to choose their own nominees. I have drawn attention earlier to the new Clause 19, which would have left this matter very much in the hands of the Sovereign under advice. I am not competent to decide in exactly what way it would be wise and advisable to choose people from the different bodies I have mentioned and all the others which hon. Members may have in mind as people who should be represented in the other House.

Mr. Walden

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if we leave it to the Sovereign to take account of advice we shall end up with the worst of all systems, namely, the appointments of the Government Front Bench?

Sir B. Rhys Williams

Nomination by the premierissimo is what we wish to avoid. I would accept any alternative suggestion to the suggestion embodied in the Bill, namely, that the Prime Minister, in cahoots with the Leader of the Opposition, should fix it between themselves more or less in accordance with what is written in the Preamble, which we have been told by the Attorney-General has no legal force and is purely declaratory.

Mr. Walden

The hon. Gentleman is saying that rather than have elections from professional bodies, which I regard as an oligarchic system, the Sovereign can take advice and then make appointments from the professional bodies. Would not that mean that naturally the Sovereign would take the advice of the Prime Minister and we should get the worst of all systems: we should get Prime Ministerial appointments from within the professions, which the hon. Gentleman is anxious to avoid?

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I am anxious to avoid the Prime Minister having the final say about who is to appear in the other place. That is why I am trying to write into the Bill a suggestion as to who should feel themselves entitled to be there. If these bodies are powerful bodies, they will be able to exercise some say in what the Prime Minister decides. If the Sovereign is not to be advised by a committee of the Privy Council, let the constitutional experts, of whom there are many on these benches, come forward with a better idea. It is not sufficient to attack the power of patronage which the Bill gives the Prime Minister without putting forward an alternative constructive suggestion. That is what I have tried to do, however ineptly.

11.0 p.m.

Another point has been made that the men who go to the other House would be legislators, and that architects, scientists and technologists are unsuitable as legislators. I do not know why scientists and technologists should have been picked upon as being particularly unsuitable to take part in the life of the Palace of Westminster, because I think any hon. Member who feels that is rather out of touch with events. I agree that a man who has spent his entire time in a laboratory or one of the professions, and has never given a great deal of thought to politics or the way in which we conduct our affairs in this House, would find himself at sea in this House. But that does not mean that he has nothing to give to British life in his own way.

The other House will not be like this one. It will have its own rules. I would like it to evolve organically so that it will have precedents and members to guide it who will remember how things were done before this Bill goes through and who will be able to advise new members as to how they should conduct themselves. It would be a very limited aim if our concept was that the men who take part in a debate in the other House should take all their rules of order from us, and that their attitude should be modelled on ours. This is a wrong concept of what the other House could become in our national life.

I come back to the contention that these men are going to be legislators. Quite honestly, they are not. They are going to be in something better than an advisory capacity, but not very much more than that. As we continue our debates in this Committee I hope we shall come to another Amendment, which I have sponsored, which would give somewhat more power and credibility to the other place—a degree of authority which they could exercise in an extreme emergency, and only then. But in the normal course of business they are not really legislators. I do not think we see them as initiating legislation in the other place.

Hon. Members

They do now.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I do not think it is envisaged in the Bill, but I am subject to correction on that. This House has become the main initiating chamber. I think that for a very long time it will remain so, and I do not quarrel with that. But to argue against this Amendment that the sort of people who would be brought into the other House would be unsuitable as legislators is a false argument which I do not think stands up in the light of the arguments which I have tried to put forward.

I come now to the question of numbers. I do not think that a House as small as a couple of hundred members is going to be able to form a quorum on the most abstruse matters, and it is precisely their capacity to form a quorum on abstruse matters which will give them a value.

I do not see why they should be limited in their number to 200 or so. I think there should be at least as many members in the other House as there are in this. I envisage that for much the greater part of their time their debates will be conducted between a handful of people, but they should be people who are really expert in the subject that has been put before them from this House. If one has only 200 people to draw upon, who are earning their money by turning up all the time, we shall find them merely expressing views which have been put up to them by interested bodies which will not themselves be able to be there. I think they should be. I think the other House should be a comprehensible mechanism enabling the Government of the day to take soundings of expert opinion as and when they need to in the ordinary way of business. One could call it a Royal Commission in permanent session, or, to use a modern expression, a Royal Commission in real time, able to contribute at once to our debates here.

In dealing with the question of numbers, I entirely accept the point made by hon. Members of the necessity to include the young. [Interruption.] And possibly young women, too, if they have met the qualifications required under the conditions which I have tried to outline. If, however, total numbers were to be limited too severely, it would be possible to have only one man to represent accountants or the Royal Society or other prominent bodies. It would be better—

Mr. Howie

This general discussion on numbers is extremely interesting, but would it not suit the next Amendment rather better, should we ever reach it?

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I assure you, Mr. Gourlay, that I am trying to cover the ground as briefly as I can.

I hope that the other House will be free from the curse of the party system as it has developed in this House. I would even be willing to consider that the seating arrangements should be changed so as to eliminate the parallel arrangement of benches opposite each other and that there should be some sort of amphitheatre seating which would—

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. We are not discussing the physical shape or the structure of the other Chamber. We are discussing Amendment No. 182.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Is not my hon. Friend deploying a very powerful argument? The questions which he is posing are questions of great moral and intellectual difficulty.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. I am seized of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The arguments may be powerful, but they are not relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Smith

Further to that point of order. Surely, such a matter cannot be dealt with in a glib and abbreviated manner. We must allow my hon. Friend to unfold his theme—

The Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member should not challenge the Chair in that fashion. Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

Mr. Ridley

Further to the point of order. The Amendment deals with representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, agriculture, commerce, finance and the professions, so it goes full circle. Surely, Mr. Gourlay, there is an argument of substance for saying that there should be an amphitheatre rather than parallel benches.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. Spurious points of order should not be raised.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I think that it is true that people who have studied the constitutions of upper houses in other countries have found merit in the fact that the party system is diminished, if not, perhaps, completely eliminated, in them. I believe that one of the most valuable aspects of this group of Amendments is that it would bring into the Palace of Westminster people who have not had to bow down to the party machine.

There may be many faults with the hereditary system, but at least it had the virtue of bringing into the Upper House people who were not tied by party affiliations. The Bill, at least in its declaratory Preamble, says that in future people will be brought there specifically because of their party affiliations. We are trying to get away from that in the Amendments and to create a House which will not be divided into parallel opposing camps.

I recall that in the White Paper, if not in the Bill, there are a number of references to the value of the cross-benches. It is on very rare occasions indeed that I have ever ventured into the other place, but my recollection is that there are cross benches there now. I merely suggest that the people who, we envisage, might come in as a result of the Amendments would be more likely to find their place on the cross benches than they would in routine party opposition to each other.

I know that there are bound to be people who are opposed to the ideas which I have tried to argue. I realise for instance, that the Front Benches will not like them. I think they may see that the type of House I think should come into existence would limit their power. Of course, it would but it would do so through the force of democracy. I would bring them fresh ideas. Some people who encounter a fresh idea immediately catch a cold, but the British public wishes us to have fresh ideas, and it is right that our constitutional mechanism should provide a way for them to get into this building.

Many people in the Civil Service would not like it. I do not know that it would be so bad if one or two feathers in Whitehall were ruffled from time to time by the expression of a really expert opinion from a position of authority. But expert opinion at present expressed in universities, trade associations or trade unions may not find an echo in this building and may be wasted.

What has come to be known as the Establishment possibly will not like it, or at any rate large parts of it will not, such as those who will find themselves excluded from the other place because they have said all they have to say and have gone past their usefulness. I will go so far as to say that I hope the Establishment will not like it, because, just as much as one or two hon. Members opposite, I think that it has run the country for far too long. We must do something dramatic to break away from its clutches. But my fear is that some Members of the Establishment will like the Bill. I am afraid that there will be reactionary forces, not necessarily in Westminster but in the country at large, which will look upon the Bill as a relatively tame Measure and will feel that it has been arrived at by agreement between the parties. They will not have read the White Paper or any of our debates, but will feel that the Bill is moderate in intention and that too much fuss has been made about it in the House of Commons.

I realise that many of the Lords themselves will not like it. But that is immaterial, because if the members of another place were now fulfilling the functions the British people and Constitution require of them there would be no need for change. Hon. Members on both sides agree that there is a need for change, and if what we are trying to change is the members of another place I do not think that we should give too much consideration to what they say. This may be thought a very impertinent expression of opinion, but it is the result of some considerable thought on this subject.

Finally, may I say that I am not in the least afraid of being laughed at by the old hands. I think that our Constitution needs a new deal. The Bill, in spite of the Government's attitude to it to date, could still become a constitutional new deal, and I would not have spoken at such length if I did not still have hopes that it might.

Mr. Peart rose—

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

On a point of order. I have been here from 10 o'clock this morning, and three times I have been excluded from the debates today. What way is this to treat a constitutional Measure? It is no good for you to tell me, Mr. Gourlay, that after the Leader of the House has spoken there will be opportunities, because we all know that the Angel of Death has arrived and is sitting in the corner seat on the Front Bench opposite. It is monstrous that at this stage the Leader of the House should seek to terminate a most important debate on a most important principle, which raises the whole problem of the corporate State. I have a great deal to say on this matter, and have been trying to say it for the past 12 hours.

The Deputy Chairman

Order. That is not a point of order. There is no reason for the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) to assume that the debate is about to be concluded.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Peart

I have listened to the debate from the beginning. I believe the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) to have been sincere in his approach. He said that he thought that he ought to suggest a constructive Amendment and he hoped that the Amendment would act as a catalyst in the sense that it would unite the Committee. Opinions have obviously cut across party lines on this issue. I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but, for reasons which I shall explain, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

The hon. Member wishes to enrich our political life by bringing into a reformed House of Lords men from different walks of life, men with great experience of the professions. He concentrated, as did many other hon. Members, on the place of scientists. It must be remembered that there are already many distinguished scientists in another place, men who have recently been nominated to it and who have made distinctive contributions to it.

On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that we must also think about the ordinary men and women of the community who may have as much common sense in political matters as the distinguished representatives of the professions. We tend to have a little snobbery about this and we ought to heed the hon. Lady's wise advice. To quote Veblen, experts often lack a trained capacity to think. There may be distinguished persons from the professions in another place, but if men are selected by their professions they may not make good representatives in the sense of enriching the life of a reformed House of Lords. Therefore, although I understand the sentiment, I think that we should be cautious.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) who disagreed with the idea of the Amendment on the ground that it was similar to Mussolini's idea for the corporate State. To throw abuse in that sense is wrong. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham has been genuinely seeking a way out, even though I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.

Paragraph 30 of the White Paper says: The 'second tier' would be composed of non-voting peers who would comprise all the other members of the House of Lords. The existence of this second tier would make it possible to bring into the House created peers who could not attend regularly but who would be able to make valuable contributions from time to time: they would include representatives of the professions, scientists, industrialists, trade unions leaders and other leading members of the community, together with those experienced parliamentarians who had passed the age of retirement. Their presence would enable the House to consider and discuss with authority all aspects of national life. In a sense, the idea of the Amendment echoes the White Paper, but I believe that the hon. Member's approach would be unworkable.

In addition, it would be wrong to have in another place people who were the nominees of outside bodies. This argument was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) who, despite his occasional references to collusion between the two Front Benches, made a robust and effective speech. We should be giving responsibility to outside bodies which would, in the end, do the electing. We should be creating, as my hon. Friend rightly said, a new oligarchy. For this reason, I believe it is right to oppose the Amendment, even though I recognise that the views of hon. Members who support it are sincere.

Sir B. Rhys Williams rose—

Mr. Peart

The hon. Baronet made a lengthy speech, to which I listened patiently. He must listen to my reply. I have tried to make my speech much more succinct. For the reasons that I have stated, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the Amendment proposes only that a section of the reformed House should be elected in this way. It is unfair to say that that would create an oligarchy.

Mr. Peart

A sectional oligarchy can be as bad as a full one. For the same reasons, I believe that it would be unworkable.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these interests are already powerful enough? Trade unions, professional organisations, societies and associations have well-paid directors-general or other heads who lobby us and who, in order to keep their jobs, make themselves a general nuisance all round. They have quite enough power in the State already without our giving them an entrenched position.

Mr. Peart

I accept that in principle. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is supporting me. If we accepted the views of the hon. Members for Twickenham and Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), in the end we should create, as my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints said, an oligarchy. I believe that there should be people with wide experience in the reformed House of Lords, but not necessarily because of experience in a particular profession.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I find myself at this late hour supporting the Leader of the House and, regretfully, unable to support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). My hon. Friend is full of innovations. He wants to change the date of Christmas Day, amongst other things. Not all his ideas are of equal merit. Nor can I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said. I was rather left with the impression that it would be a good idea to have a circular "House of Baronets" in the Central Lobby half-way between this House and the House of Lords.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

A very good idea.

Mr. Cooke

Nor do I intend to do battle with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) over what he said about a certain eminent surgeon who, I can assure him, every weekend gives me a full dose of his views on the politics of both parties.

The interests mentioned in the new Clause and the Amendment are already adequately represented in the Upper House. It will depend upon how the Government operate whatever scheme they succeed in getting enacted. We shall want to know more from the Government about that. The various aspects of national life which are mentioned—industry, trade unions, the chairmen of great companies and the bankers—are already adequately represented in the Upper House, either by peers of the first creation or by hereditary peers.

The Church is represented by the Bishops. The Free Church is represented. There is a Church of England parish priest in the Lords. There is a Roman Catholic priest there. They are in the Upper House already. [AN HON. MEMBER: "By accident."] I hope that the Government will take note of this when they are dealing with the Upper House if they succeed in getting this Bill into law, because in the existing House of Lords they can find much of the representation that the Amendment and the new Clause ask for.

The other professions—for instance, architects—are well represented in the Upper House at present, even by a duke in one case. There are distinguished musicians in the Lords already. The world of design and painting is represented—a Royal Academician sits in the other place. Writers of every kind abound there. The National Theatre and the Arts Council are fully represented. The university teachers are represented. I am not sure whether a way could be found under the proposals in the Clause and the Amendment to secure representation for schoolteachers. They seem to be warring with each other at the moment. Journalism is fully represented. Agriculture is perhaps over-represented. Tourism is fully represented. Television is represented by the chairman of a great company and by an active television producer. The Armed Forces, too, are represented. Even the young students, admittedly through the hereditary principle, are represented, although perhaps the Government can cope with that one.

The present Upper House is very largely representative of every facet of our national life, including the ordinary man in the street. It has, after all, a bus conductor as a hereditary peer. What is wrong with that? It has a former railway employee, who did much the same sort of work on the railways and did it very well. He is a Labour life peer. They are people in ordinary positions in life and they are performing a useful function.

There is a sufficient pool of talent available from which to draw if the Government operate whatever scheme goes through in a sensible way. Some hon. Members do not trust the Government. I still have hope that the Government will make sense of whatever scheme they get into law. I cannot support the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move,

That the Question be now put: —

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

On a point of order.

The Chairman

Order. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Heffer

I have sat here for two-and-a-half hours. I have a right to speak.

The Chairman

The Question is, That the Question be now put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 52.

Division No. 82.] AYES [11.26 p.m.
Archer, Peter Hannan, William Oakes, Gordon
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Harper, Joseph Ogden, Eric
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Malley, Brian
Blackburn, F. Hazell, Bert Oswald, Thomas
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Brooks, Edwin Hooley, Frank Parker, John (Dagenham)
Brown, Bob (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brown, R. W, (Shoreditch & F'bury) Howie, W. Pentland, Norman
Buchan, Norman Hoy, James Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Huckfield, Leslie Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Probert, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil Hunter, Adam Rees, Merlyn
Coe, Denis Hynd, John Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Coleman, Donald Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Concannon, J. D. Janner, Sir Barnett Rowlands, E.
Conlan, Bernard Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Crawshaw, Richard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Judd, Frank Silverman, Julius
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lawson, George Small, William
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Spriggs, Leslie
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Davies, C. Elled (Rhondda, E.) Lestor, Miss Joan Taverne, Dick
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Tinn, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Loughlin, Charles Urwin, T. W.
Dempsey, James Lubbock, Eric Varley, Eric G.
Dobson, Ray McCann, John Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack Macdonald, A. H. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Watkins, David (Consett)
Eadie, Alex Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackintosh, John P. Wells, William (Wasall, N.)
Maclennan, Robert White, Mrs. Eirene
Ennals, David Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Ensor, David Millan, Bruce Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Ford, Ben Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Forrester, John Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Winnick, David
Fowler, Gerry Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Gardner, Tony Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woof, Robert
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Morris, Charles R. (Opetishaw)
Gregory, Arnold Moyle, Roland TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Murray, Albert Mr. Neil McBride.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Noel-Baker,Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gresham Cooke, R. Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hay, John Russell, Sir Ronald
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Heffer, Eric S. Sharples, Richard
Booth, Albert Howell, David (Gu ldford) Sheldon, Robert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Taylor, EdwardM.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Cooke, Robert Lancaster, Col. C. G. Waddington, David
Costain, A. P. MacArthur, Ian Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Dalkeith, Earl of Maude, Angus Ward, Dame Irene
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Monro, Hector Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Eden, Sir John Morgan, Geranit (Denbigh) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred Norwood, Christopher Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Eyre, Reginald Oram, Albert E. Younger, Hn. George
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Osborn, John (Hallam)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Percival, Ian TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Mr. John Biggs-Davison and
Glover, Sir Douglas Pym, Francis Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Gower, Raymond Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Question, That the Amendment be made, put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Callaghan

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

Mr. Gresham Cooke rose—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Committee report Proceedings suspended.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order

The Chairman

Order. This is one of the Questions which I am required by Standing Order to put forthwith.

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 39.

Division No. 83.] AYES [11.35 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Saltord, E.) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Norwood, Christopher
Archer, Peter Hannan, William Oakes, Gordon
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Harper, Joseph Ogden, Eric
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Malley, Brian
Blackburn, F, Hazell, Bert Oswald, Thomas
Booth, Albert Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hooley, Frank Parker, John (Dagenham)
Brooks, Edwin Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brown, Hugh, D. (G'gow, Provan) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Peart, Rt, Hn. Fred
Brown, Bob (N'c'stle-u-Tyne, W.) Howie, W. Pentland, Norman
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hoy, James Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Buchan, Norman Huckfield, Leslie Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Probert, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hunter, Adam Rees, Merlyn
Carmichael, Neil Hynd, John Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Coe, Denis Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Coleman, Donald Janner, Sir Barnett Rowlands, E.
Concannon, J. D. Jones Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Conlan, Bernard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Crawshaw, Richard Judd, Frank Silverman, Julius
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Lawson, George Small, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Leadbitter, Ted Spriggs, Leslie
Dalyell, Tam Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Davidson, James (Aberdeen, W.) Lestor, Miss Joan Taverne, Dick
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Tinn, James
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Loughlin, Charles Urwin, T. W.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lubbock, Eric Varley, Eric G.
Dempsey, James McCann, John Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dobson, Ray Macdonald, A. H. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunnett, Jack Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Walkins, David (Consett)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Walking, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Eadie, Alex Mackintosh, John P. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Maclennan, Robert White Mrs. Eirene
Ennals, David Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Ensor, David Millan, Bruce Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Ford, Ben Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Winnick, David
Forrester, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Fowler, Gerry Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woof, Robert
Gardner, Tony Morris, Chartes R. (Openshaw)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Moyle, Roland TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gregory, Arnold Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Grey, Charles (Durham) Murray, Albert Mr. Neil McBride.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gower, Raymond Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Gresham Cooke, R. Russell, Sir Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hay, John Sharples, Richard
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Howell, David (Guildford) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Cooke, Robert MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Costain, A. P. Maude, Angus Waddington, David
Dalkeith, Earl of Monro, Hector Ward, Dame Irene
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Eden, Sir John Osborn, John (Hallam) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred Percival, Ian Younger, Hn. George
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Pym, Francis Mr. John Biggs-Davison and
Glover, Sir Douglas Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Mr. Victor Goodhew.

(Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended.—[Mr. Harper.]

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 33.

Division No. 84.] AYES [11.44 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hannan, William Norwood, Christopher
Archer, Peter Harper, Joseph Oakes, Gordon
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Malley, Brian
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hazell, Bert Oswald, Thomas
Blackburn, F. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Booth, Albert Hooley, Frank Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brooks, Edwin Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Howie, W. Pentland, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hoy, James Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Huckfield, Leslie Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Probert, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hunter, Adam Rees, Merlyn
Carmichael, Neil Hynd, John. Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kennett (St. P'c'as)
Coe, Denis Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Coleman, Donald Janner, Sir Barnett Rowlands, E.
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Conlan, Bernard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Crawshaw, Richard Judd, Frank Silverman, Julius
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Lawson, George Small, William
Cullen, Mrs Alice Leadbitter, Ted Spriggs, Leslie
Dalyell, Tam Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Lestor, Miss Joan Taverne, Dick
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Tinn, James
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Loughlin, Charles Urwin, T. W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Lubbock, Eric Varley, Eric G.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) McCann, John Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dempsey, James Macdonald, A. H. Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Dobson, Ray Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunnett, Jack Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Watkins, David (Consett)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Mackintosh, John P. Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Eadie, Alex Maclennan, Robert Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) White, Mrs. Eirene
Ennals, David Millan, Bruce Wilkins, W. A.
Ensor, David Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Ford, Ben Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Forrester, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winnick, David
Fowler, Gerry Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Gardner, Tony Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woof, Robert
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Moyle, Roland
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Murray, Albert Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Mr. Neil McBride.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Glover, Sir Douglas Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Gower, Raymond Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gresham Cooke, R. Russell, Sir Ronald
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Howell, David (Guildford) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Cooke, Robert MacArthur, Ian Waddington, David
Costain, A. P. Maude, Angus Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Dalkeith, Earl of Monro, Hector Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Younger, Hn. George
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred Osborn, John (Hallam) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Eyre, Reginald Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Mr. John Biggs-Davison and
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Pym, Francis Mr. Victor Goodhew.