§ Again considered in Committee.
§ Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
§ Mr. Powell
Before we took the decision to continue for a bit, I was talking about the only relevant information which has been vouchsafed to us, namely that given on 26th February by the Secretary of State for Social Services, in our task of considering whether one-third of possible total attendances is the right attendance qualification for a voting peer in the new Chamber. I was quoting the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. After applying the retiring age of 72, the right hon. Gentleman noted that in the last complete SessionNinety-nine created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72had fulfilled the one-third qualification. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say this:My conclusion is that, unless many more peers were created an attendance requirement of 50 per cent. would produce a much smaller voting House than the 230 thought desirable, if that is the figure we wanted."—[OFFICIAL RF. PORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1845.]Before I come to the main deduction from those figures, I want to point out the interesting implication of those statistics when they are applied to the table in the White Paper.
§ Mr. Peyton
On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Irving, that it is exceedingly hard to listen to the very closely knit arguments of my right hon. Friend against the background 342 of the constant parrot-like chatter which emanates uninterruptedly from the Front Bench opposite?
§ The Chairman
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will wish to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Powell
The table on page 5 of the White Paper gives the total numbers, divided into peers by creation and peers by succession, who in that same Session attended the House of Lords for more than one-third of the sittings. Therefore, by applying the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, we can ascertain what proportion of the two categories were within retirement age. It gives the interesting result that of the peers of first creation, of whom a total of 153 attended at least one-third of the sittings, only 99 were under 72, whereas of the 138 peers by succession who so attended as many as 117 were under 72. This is a not uninteresting figure, because it illustrates the much lower average age of peers by succession and emphasises that over one-third of the noble Lords sitting in another place as peers of first creation are over the retirement age which is written into the Bill. It is one of the indications of how easily a Chamber by appointment would tend to become, if it be not too disrespectful an expression, a Chamber of dead-beats.
However, the main point about the intervention on 26th February of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is that he showed clearly the reason why one-third had been adopted as the qualification figure. It was for the sake 343 of a House of 230. He said that it was in order to produce of House of 230—" If that is the figure we wanted ". In other words, the figure which we are debating is not one at which the Government arrived because, for example, they thought it reasonable that a voting peer should attend at least one sitting in three; it was not because they thought that one-third was a reasonable attendance record in itself; it was not because they thought that a peer who attended one sitting in three would have a current grasp of the business going through the House. It was not for any of those factual, decent, rational grounds that the one-third was written into the Bill. It was written in simply for a mathematical reason—no, for a mechanical reason—that it would make possible the production of a House of 230, 230 having been predetermined already. In other words, in this circular argument, the starting point at which the Government came into the circle was the assumption of a House of 230 Members.
That is cross-checked if we look at the second of the interlocked figures, namely, the retirement age, for although the Government have argued that there is some relationship between the retirement age of 72 and the practice in other walks of life, in reality there is one reason and one reason only for the choice of precisely that figure. There is one reason only why the age of 72, not 70, 73 or 75 is chosen, and that is the reason which I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General on 26th February, when I said to him:Given an assumed age structure of the new Chamber, and given certain mortality tables, presumably the age of retirement that is required to maintain a stable total membership is a unique and unambiguous figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February. 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1821.]This must be so.
§ Mr. Hastings
On a point of order, Mr. Irving. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) drew your attention and that of the Committee to the noise emanating without cease from the Treasury Bench, and he remarked that it was particularly reprehensible when the Committee was trying to follow an important and intricate argument presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Since that time, 344 we have not been spared a second of that nattering, nattering by the Secretary of State for Social Services in particular, who is not only engaged in permanent conversation but has turned his back on the proceedings. Ought not he, above all, to be paying some attention to our proceedings?
§ The Chairman
Order. I hope that the Committee will give attention to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
§ Mr. Powell
I was pointing out that, given a certain mortality, which must be assumed and which is ascertainable from the mortality tables, and given an age composition of the House, which, again, is a basic assumption which can be made, there is only one age of retirement—
§ The Chairman
Order. I am watching hon. and right hon. Members. I do not think that, as yet, the right hon. Gentleman has disturbed the Committee. I shall draw attention to it if he does.
§ Sir D. Glover
On a point of order, Mr. Irving. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is treating the Committee with contempt. You have just said that you are watching hon. and right hon. Members. But even before my right hon. Friend had started to speak, the right hon. Gentleman was still nattering away to his colleague on the Front Bench. It is disgraceful.
§ The Chairman
Order. As far as the Chair is concerned, the question is whether the right hon. Gentleman is disturbing the Committee. I cannot say that much so far.
§ Mr. Powell
For the third or fourth time—and I hope not to trouble the Committee with a further unintended repetition of the statement—I repeat that the significance of the age of 72 is that it is the unique figure which, on those assumptions, would keep that stable figure of a 230 membership for the new Chamber.
345 Therefore, looking at the other two elements in this trinity of co-ordinated, interlocking figures, we are led inexorably to the conclusion that the starting figure was the 230. Accordingly, we cannot make up our minds either on the figure in the Bill or on any of the Amendments before the Committee unless we have gained some insight into the origin, and therefore the validity, of this assumed starting point of a Chamber of 230, from which everything else, including the one-third qualification, is derived.
We are all familiar with the passage in the White Paper in which the figure of 230 first struck our attention. It is a striking figure, because one would have thought that the Government, if they were just putting forward a specimen House as an example to show how it might be composed, would have hit on a round figure like 200 or 250. It is very natural to inquire, "Why 230?". This will presently appear. In paragraph 48 of the White Paper they give us a breakdown of the figure of 230 into the figures for the parties and cross-benchers—105 Government, 80 Conservative, 15 Liberal and 30 cross-benchers. Although those add up to 230, they have been constructed so as to add up to 230. The figure of 230 is not arrived at as the sum of those figures; those figures are arrived at as figures of which the sum will be 230.
So we are still looking for the origin of this crucial figure, which, although it is first put forward in the White Paper as a specimen, as just an example to show how such a restructured Chamber might work, on a take it or leave it basis—" Let us say 230 and see how it works "—and although that 230 is not in the Bill, it governs provisions written into the Bill, including the provision that the Committee is debating.
Therefore, it is absolutely crucial for us to discover how we came by this 230, by which we have been hag-ridden ever since. We begin to find the answer to that earlier in the White Paper, in paragraph 11, where the same figure appears in a most interesting context. The last sentence says:The average daily attendance for 1967–68 up to 1st August was about 230. …There—and I will prove this further as I go along—is the wizardry, there is the 346 scientific basis which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was desiderating for the figure of 230—not a specimen, not an example among many, but a governing consideration from which so much else has to be derived.
What the Government did, what the cabal between the two sides in the two Houses did, was to say, "Let us look and see how many people were attending for one-third of the time, say, in the present Session of 1967–68. It was 230—well, then, let us make that a starting point and work everything out from there. After all, the whole thing is arbitrary. One starting point is as arbitrary as another. No one's nose will be put out of joint if we do not change anything. In the present session there are 230 noble lords attending one-third of the time."
Why one-third of the time? That was one of the columns they got out in their statistical examination of attendance in the Session 1967–68. Anything higher would have given a derisory, much smaller figure. So they settled for 230. It is because of the attendance for one-third or more of the sittings of 230 peers on average daily attendance—average in the last complete Session—that 230 was made the starting point in the White Paper that the party composition and the crazy arrangement with crossbenchers were worked out so as to add up to 230; that the statistics were used to derive a retirement age of 72; and that by a kind of circulus vitiosus the figure we are discussing of one-third as the qualifying attendance was written back into the Bill in this subsection.
But it went much further than that. So many more things become clear to us at last from the revelation of the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion when we were discussing this Amendment. Day after day during the proceedings on the Bill, the Committee has puzzled over the figure of 77—not the number of the beast but the number of peers by succession who some gift of second sight had apparently informed the Government would become voting peers in the new Chamber. We could not understand it. We puzzled about it and asked about it at sitting after sitting.
We got a breakdown from the Home Secretary on 19th February. It is in 347 column 513 of HANSARD of that date. But that only increased our astonishment. Seventy-seven, in all conscience, was a specific figure. It was exactly 77—not 76 or 78—peers by succession who would have to be voting peers in order to make up the tale of the new House. It was more than that. He knew exactly what party they would each belong to, that it would be necessary to take 24 Labour peers by succession and make them voting peers, 42 Conservatives, seven Liberals and four crossbenchers. It all adds up to 77.
The right hon. Gentleman did not give us the explanation but the figures given by the Secretary of State for the Social Services earlier in the debate on this Amendment, the disclosure of the train of reasoning, explain everything. What we have to do is to read these figures together with the left-hand column in the table on page 5, which analyses the peers who attended in the present House for more than one-third of the sittings in 1967–68. So the Government, by assuming a House of 230—a voting House—Members retiring at 72, sitting for at least one-third of the sittings, arrived at a means of working from the existing House to their hypothetical House. Let us just run briefly through the figures and see what they disclose.
In the White Paper, there are to be 105 Labour peers in the new House. There are 81 Labour peers of first creation in the existing House who sit more than one-third of the time. Take 81 from 105 and we get 24. We therefore have to make 24 hereditary Labour peers into voting peers by making them peers of first creation.
But this is a very strange thing, too. The Home Secretary had not noticed that there were not as many as 24 Labour peers by succession available; there are only 14 of them who sit for one-third of the time, and there are only 21 altogether. Hon. Members opposite may be especially pleased to know that it is the intention of their Government, in order to preserve the integrity of the scheme, to create three more Labour hereditary peers in order that 24 may be converted from hereditary peers into life peers and thus make up the tale of 105.
348 I do not want to weary the Committee by going through all the figures. Anyone can amuse himself by taking page 5 of the White Paper and column 531 of HANSARD of 19th February and getting out the figures for himself. There are to be 80 Conservative peers. There are already 38 Conservative peers of first creation sitting one-third of the time; 38 from 80 is 42 and that is the figure of Conservative peers by succession who are to be made voting peers in the new Chamber.
Here I have an apology to make. I am delighted that it should chance that sentry duty on the Opposition Front Bench is being done at the moment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I have an apology to make to him and to my other right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have to confess an unworthy thought which I and some of my colleagues had entertained.
When we were told that there were to be precisely 77 present successionary peers who were to be given voting peerages and that 42 were to be Conservatives, I must admit, and I repent of it, that an unworthy thought entered our minds. We imagined as the only way of explain-such precise figures that the cabal must have gone through the nominal list together marking off those whom the respective Whips thought suitable to receive this accolade and had arrived in that arbitrary manner at 42. The right hon. Gentleman's disclosure earlier in the debate has absolutely acquitted my right hon. Friend and his colleagues of any possible suspicion of this crime.
Indeed, we begin to understand how astonished the Opposition Front Bench was, no less astonished than ourselves, when it heard of these figures. There is a simple and complete alibi which my right hon. Friends possess. These figures are derived from the attendances in the upper House up to 1st August, 1968, and that is well after the conversations between the two sides were broken off. It is therefore evident that this hair-raising piece of arithmetic was being done by the Government long after they had ceased to be in contact with my right hon. Friends, and thus, both because the figures are explicable on other grounds and on the chronological alibi, I take this opportunity, and I am happy to be able to do so, 349 of saying that I and, I am sure, everyone else on this side of the Committee absolutely acquit the Opposition Front Bench of any complicity in this nonsense and of any unworthy motives which may have lain behind it.
For the sake of completeness, I will add that the Liberals work out at 15 Liberals in the new House, which would be a strong representation compared with the House of Commons. There are to be 15 Liberals in the new House. Minus eight Literals peers of first creation who already attend one-third of the time, this leaves seven Liberal peers by succession to be made voting peers. This is very lucky for them, because the proportion is as high as 65 per cent., of the Liberal peers by succession who attend regularly. Even of the total it is 45 per cent., which is far better than any other party.
It is better to belong to a party than to no party at all—I am sure a sentiment universally entertained in this Committee—because when we come to the C.B.s—I mean the cross-benchers—they fare terribly badly. There are about 30 C.B.s in the new House, and there are already 26 C.B.s of first creation, who are attending assiduously in the present House of Lords, which leaves only four to be made, out of the 52 who attend one-third of the time or the 413 C.B.s by succession who are in the present House. So it is a mouldy ration for a C.B. unless he happens also to be a Law Lord, to which we shall come later.
As a result of the adoption of this arbitrary starting point of 230, the existing figure of one-third attendance in one Session, which is the latest Session, we have not only arrived at the arbitrary figures for retirement and the arbitrary figure of one-third attendance as the qualification for voting, but we have also arrived at these ludicrous intentions for the translation of successionary peers into voting peers.
The Government, so slipshod has been their way, have not even done this simple, clockwork sort of arithmetic correctly. They have not applied the correction for retirement at 72 to the figures in the left-hand column of the table on page 5, which they are using to arrive at the number of translations from hereditary into new voting peers. They have been working upon the totals of one-third attendance in the new House in each case, and 350 not upon the totals of one-third attendance under 72. The joyous consequence of this will be that if this thing ever were set up—which please God it never will be—then the number of hereditary peers who would have to be translated into voting peers to make the thing work would be substantially larger even than the figures which the Government have put forward. Even on this simple arithmetic, this clockwork, child arithmetic, they have not even then been able to put their own assumptions into the sum to get the right figures.
The whole thing, and this is the conclusion to which an examination of every provision in the Bill brings us back, is grotesque. Just for the sake of constructing an artificial Chamber with an artificial balance which would present us all the time with a conundrum or dilemma between irrestible obstinacy and absolute subservience, we have to go through all this rigmarole of imposing conditions, qualifications and regulations. We have to introduce an attendance qualification for voting which none of us really believes is sound. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne showed how absurd the one-third attendance is. He showed how out of line with reality it is. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who would seriously attempt to justify, on merits, this particular choice of figure.
We have been driven into this absurdity, and hon. Members opposite will be driven through the Lobby in defence of this absurdity, in order to construct a Chamber which will not work, a Chamber which will confer on us no benefits that we cannot get from the present Chamber, but which, if it could be brought into existence, would constantly be causing anxiety, interruption and frustration both to this House and to itself.
Wherever it is tested, this scheme breaks down. I forget how many days we have so far spent in testing it in each of its particulars and arriving uniformily experimentally at the same result. Hon. Members, those who vote with and those who vote against the Government, and people out of doors with more serious things to think about and to worry about, are asking ever more insistently, how much longer do we have to go on before the Government admit that the thing is grotesque nonsense and take it away?
§ Mr. Heffer
I approach the Amendment differently from the way in which it has been approached by other hon. Members. After listening to the speeches of some hon. Members I am beginning to wonder why I am opposing this Bill. The more one looks at it, the more attractive it becomes.
The total number of days during which the other place sat last Session was 137. On the basis of one-third attendance, that means attendance on 45 or 46 days during a Session. I would not mind having a job where I was expected to attend only for 45 or 46 days a year. The rush by the average person in the street to enter the House of Lords on that basis would be phenomenal.
We know that consideration of the salary is being held back for the time being, but ultimately this would mean a £2,000 a year job for 45 days. The other place starts at 2.30 p.m. and usually tries to finish its business so that members can get home for dinner by 8 o'clock.
§ Mr. Heffer
That is a 5½-hour day. So for £2,000 they will put in 45 5½-hour days a year. That is not a bad job, and I am wondering why I am opposing the Bill. I ought to be one of the three extra peers who will have to be created by the Labour Party; anyone with real intelligence would be trying to get into the other place.
In the Amendment which I am supporting, we are being a little harsh on the noble Lords, because we say that it should go up to two-thirds. That would mean their working 90 days a year. Again, I think that most building operatives, dockers and factory workers would be very pleased to work for only 90 days a year and receive ultimately the sort of remuneration which noble Lords are likely to receive.
§ Sir D. Glover
The hon. Gentleman has been a great ally of mine during our consideration of the Bill. But, before he pursues his argument too far, may I remind him that, in the last Division, barely half the total number of hon. Members, who are paid on a full-time basis, were present to vote?
§ Mr. Heffer
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members are not voting because they are so disinterested in the Bill. Those of us who are here are opposing it because we realise that it must be fought, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are here to sustain it. In most Divisions so far, something like 130 hon. Members have voted. The great mass of hon. Members are not interested. They do not believe that it is worth while and, in a sense, I agree with them, because I do not think that it is worth while. My disagreement with them arises from the undoubted fact that, if they joined with us to oppose the Bill, it would get no further.
§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman should be discussing the minimum attendance. I hope that he will come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Heffer
Mr. Irving, a comparison was made with the attendance in this Committee. I think that there was some relevance to the Amendment, though perhaps not much.
I approach this matter a little differently from other hon. Members. With this attractive situation, it seems to me that people would want to go into the other Chamber, particularly on the basis proposed.
In paragraph 4 of the White Paper, we are told by the Government:The Government considers that any reform of the House of Lords should be based on the following propositions: (a) in the framework of a modern parliamentary system the second chamber has an essential rôle to play, complementary to but not rivalling that of the Commons; (b) the present composition and powers of the House of Lords prevent it from performing that rôle as effectively as it should "—
§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the Amendment, which is concerned with minimum attendances.
§ Mr. Heffer
I am just coming to that very point. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made the point that, with a figure of 230, an attendance of one-third is based upon what happens today. There are 230 peers who attend regularly one-third of the time. We are told that the 353 intention is to reform the other Chamber to make it more efficient. But this is what happens now.
We have the suggestion in paragraph 4 of the White Paper that the composition of the House of Lords prevents it from performing its rôle as effectively as it should. At the same time as we have this argument, the reality of the figures and the one-third attendance is based upon what happens now. I do not see how the argument can be sustained that these proposals will make it a more efficient House of Lords which can be complementary to the work of this Chamber. If that is not the object, what is it? What are we talking about? What is the purpose of this if it is not to make the House of Lords more efficient so that it can assist and be complementary to this Chamber?
The House of Lords will have extra powers, and those powers will be determined by the patronage of the two Front Benches. That is what is behind this proposal. That is what we are talking about when we talk about attendance. That is how this figure has been arrived at, and I do not think that we can accept it, because no genuine agreement is being put forward to support it.
The only way to test whether we are concerned with making the other place more efficient and giving it a rôle complementary to that of this House is to raise the attendance figure. Some hon. Members have suggested a half, but I do not think that is enough. I think that two-thirds is about right.
§ Mr. John Smith
The hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of a higher attendance figure, but is not he one of those who do not want the peers to attend at all?
§ Mr. Heffer
The hon. Gentleman is right if he means that I should like to see the second Chamber abolished and an elected—
§ Mr. Heffer
I am very sorry. The answer to that question will never be known. It can be guessed. I think that hon. Members are pretty good guessers, and that they have a vague idea of what I feel about the other place.
354 Some hon. Members have suggested a half, and others have suggested that it should be only one-fifth, which is about 28 days in the year. That makes it all the more attractive. To attend for only one-fifth of the time, or 28 days in a year, would be exceedingly attractive, especially if one were to receive £2,000 a year for doing so, and with no constituency problems. If one subtracts from that days off for illness, for attending to Parliamentary duties, and for other Governmental duties, it becomes a very attractive proposition indeed. I do not know why I am arguing against it. I really ought to be arguing for getting in there at the earliest possible moment. I really ought to support the Amendment, because this would make it a very attractive proposition.
§ Sir D. Glover
The hon. Member is dealing very ably with the question of minimum attendance, but perhaps I might remind him that there is nothing in the White Paper or in the Bill about the number of hours of attendance when someone is supposed to be there.
§ Mr. Heffer
It is relevant, because it is true. Figures of one-third and two-thirds have been suggested, but there is nothing which says that, having clocked in, a Member of the other place has to stay there for the whole of the sitting and clock out at the end. It is merely a question of clocking in.
§ Mr. Heffer
No. And there is no penalty clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did the Committee a great service when he outlined the survey. For the first time we have some idea of the figures and the noble Lords' feelings. His proposal that this should be entered into the records of the Committee should be taken up, and we might also enter the mysterious document which was in the Library but may not be there now, which may contain 15 pages or may not, which we have not seen and are not likely to see. Both these documents would help us: unfortunately we do not have them now.
§ The Amendment raising the attendance from one-third to two-thirds should be supported, but I hope that we will reject the Amendment lowering it to one-fifth, although I understand the reasons for it. If the Government are serious about making the other place an efficient organism, complementary to this House, to help improve our Parliamentary system, they should accept this sensible, logical and modest proposal. It is a test of their sincerity. It is hardly sincere to stick to the figures of 230 and one-third purely on the basis that that is what happens now.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
You have directed, Mr. Irving, that Amendment No. 148, in my name, should be debated with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashton under Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It is in the opposite sense, so I hope that you will call it for a separate Division. If you were unhappily to decide to the contrary, hon. Members would have to accept either the Bill as it stands or the proposal of the hon. Member to tighten up the attendance qualification. That would put in some difficulty those of us who want to lower the qualification. I put firmly to you, Mr. Irving, the request that you should call Amendment No. 148 at the end of this debate for a Division only.
Many hon. Members dislike the proposed attendance qualification in the Bill, and while this is not the opportunity—such an opportunity will arise on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill—to discuss whether or not there should be such a qualification, it is open to those who wish to discuss Amendment No. 148 to argue, accepting for this purpose that there should be an attendance qualification, that the one proposed in the Measure is too high and that a lower one should be inserted.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that, even with the attendance qualification proposed in the Bill, membership of another place will be a cosy and agreeable life. But his suggestion was based on the assumption that it would be paid. But if one is to believe the Prime Minister, which is an exercise of faith as against experience, as was once said of a second marriage—
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Yes, but in the case of the Prime Minister it is faith against experience. If one believes the Prime Minister in this matter, it is doubtful whether there will be any remuneration. One need only consult the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech. For once the Prime Minister may be 50 per cent. right; and even the spectacle of the ermine figure of "the Lord Heffer of Walton" would not compensate the Committee for the loss we would suffer from the benches opposite.
There is importance in the degree of clock-punching which is to be imposed on noble Lords, because it will affect the character and quality of membership of the other place. The more we insist on a high degree of attendance, the lower will be the field of selection. Many people are prepared to accept life in this Chamber because this is the effective one—they are prepared to come here and attend a great deal—but if we invite people to join a House which, particularly under the scheme proposed by the Bill will be a poor affair anyway, and insist on such an attendance qualification, our field of selection will be smaller.
Or do the Government intend to resort to direction and compulsion? As they have taken powers to direct the level of wages and so many other things, they can hardly be expected to hesitate to take compulsory powers to ennoble people. Unless, as in wages, trade union affairs and labour matters generally, they will resort to direction, they will get the less able sort of person to join a House which will have little power; and that will particularly apply if a high measure of attendance is made a necessary qualification for continued voting and, therefore, for continued salary, if any.
My Amendment proposes that the rate of attendance should be only one in five. Assuming that another place will sit, under the new dispensation, on five days a week, there would need to be a weekly attendance, and I believe that that would be sufficient.
§ Mr. John Mendelson
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the higher the degree of attendance insisted upon, the lower would be the field of selection. Did he mean "narrower" or "lower "?
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
There will be fewer people in the field and they will be of lower quality. We are concerned here with getting people of some standing in the national life and many with other responsibilities and commitments in the national life. The more we make this compulsory punching of the clock a condition, the more we reduce the field of selection. This will be particularly true of the cross-bench peers. No doubt worthy and respectable party men will be proposed by the party Whips to be the Government army, the Opposition army—the question of attendance in the context of the Liberal Party is so delicate that I was not going to refer to it, but no doubt the Liberal army as well—but what about the cross-bench peers? The essence of the present cross-bench peers is that they include a number of extremely eminent and distinguished men. Does anyone, even the hopeful Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, think that we shall get those very distinguished cross-bench peers of today to turn up on the basis of one in three compulsory attendance knowing that if they do not make these necessary attendances they will be excluded from their voting rights?
Yet it is upon these 30 famous cross-bench peers that the whole elaborate structure of the balance between Government and Opposition is based. Ministers have paid a great deal of attention to the argument that they are not giving the Government an automatic majority. If cross-bench peers vote against them, the Government will not have an automatic majority. That argument depends on the quality of these 30 men. Are they to be men of standing and independence or the sort of docile chap who always votes for the Government of the day? This is a criticism of the one-third attendance. I simply do not believe that we will get the eminent figures who at present sit on the cross benches in another place to be voting peers on this basis.
I should be straying from the comparatively narrow field of my Amendment if on the general question of attendance I said more than that the whole attendance qualification is a most degrading one. It is one which no hon. Member has suggested should apply to Members of this House. No doubt from the point of view of the Patronage Secre- 358 tary it would be jolly convenient and it would perhaps be convenient to the Deputy Chief Whip of the Opposition, but no one has seriously suggested it. We would all regard it as an affront and would reject it. We take the view that we are answerable to our constituents for attendance and activities here and that it is no one else's business how frequently we attend or vote.
Yet it is proposed by the Government to inflict this supreme insult on another place that members who are to vote in another place are not only to be carefully selected so that their party alignment is in right proportions, but they are to be sacked if they do not punch the clock. This is an indication of the squalid concept that this Government have of another place.
§ The Chairman
Order. In view of the statement of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made and the fact that his Amendment is exceptional, I will concede a Division on it.
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
In the span of the last four hours we have had a considerable amount of rhetoric and argument. If it were not for the agreeable charm characteristic of my nation, I might describe it in another way, or perhaps if I were the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party I might use different words.
Be that as it may, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with that frankness which is sometimes characteristic of him, has made it clear—and it was suggested by other hon. Members—that there is little attempt in the Amendments to improve this part of the Clause. The Amendments have been tabled by hon. Members who admit openly that they are displeased with the whole of the Clause, with the whole rationale of a qualification for the exercise of voting rights in the Lords. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the Committee that it is impossible, even if it were so minded, for it to accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and accept all four Amendments, because they are diametrically opposed to each other.
§ Mr. Heffer
I did not advise the Committee to accept all four Amendments. I suggested that the Committee should accept that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
When my hon. Friend reads HANSARD tomorrow he may well find that he said what I have attributed to him, although he may not have meant it. All four Amendments would alter the attendance requirement in any Session. That requirement is defined in subsection (2) asattendance at the sittings of the House (or sittings of Committees of the House) on a number of days equal to not less than one-third of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session (other than days on which it meets for judicial business only) ".We have for a number of hours been invited to consider all manner of systems of compilations which would enable us to arrive at a proper basis for determining the voting qualification. What the proper attendance requirement should be is basically and fundamentally a matter of judgment. Account must be taken not only of the need for voting peers who are not paid to have private means or to be able to earn their living outside the House but also of the desirability of including amongst the voting peers those who have jobs outside the House or who live a substantial distance from London and of the importance of securing sufficient voting peers to fulfil the tasks of a second Chamber. The past records of attendance which have been alluded to more than once give a rough estimate of what might be a reasonable requirement. In the Session 1967–68 up to 1st August, 1968, 161 peers under the age of 72 attended over 50 per cent. and 216 peers under the age of 72 over 333⅓ per cent. of the sittings.
§ Mr. Powell
The Under-Secretary said that one factor to be taken into account in arriving at the one-third was that peers would not be paid. The one-third was already in the scheme when peers were to be paid.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
It seems to have been part of the case of nearly everyone who has spoken on these Amendments that there is of necessity a triangle or 360 quadrilateral of forces interconnected, and it is from that basic hypothesis that right hon. and hon. Members have argued. Of course there is a certain connection between the number of peers who might attend if one takes a certain age as a retiring age, and, again, if one is to consider what conditions might be laid down for membership. But I say that it is no more than a loose connection, and that it is right and proper, as far as this Clause is concerned, that we should direct our minds to the question: assuming that the second Chamber is reformed and that it carries out the duties envisaged in the White Paper and in the Bill at large, is a one-third qualification a reasonable rule or not?
§ Mr. John Lee (Reading)
Would my hon. Friend deal with the point whether or not there should be different standards of attendance as between cross-benchers on the one hand and the more sophisticated politicians on the other, and if he cannot deal with this now, will he give an undertaking to deal with it in the "Clause stand part" debate?
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
That certainly does not arise on this Amendment, and for my part I do not think that this is a distinction which could properly be drawn.
I wish to put it to the Committee that it is reasonable to assume that in a reformed House most voting peers will wish to attend fairly regularly, and it is expected that many would attend at least half and that a good number would attend two-thirds of the sittings. But so as not to exclude peers who have jobs outside the House or who live away from London, it is desired that the minimum requirement should not be too onerous. I am sure the Committee would regard it as wholly unreasonable to have a qualification of two-thirds attendance. The one-third level proposed in the Bill is, I submit, about right. It is intended not as an optimum level of attendance but only as a drop-out point at which a member should not expect to exercise voting rights.
I would point out to the Committee that Amendment No. 120 is undesirable because it discriminates between different aspects of the work of the House of Lords. It treats certain legislative work 361 based on legislation passed by the House of Commons as more valuable than other legislative work—for example, Bills starting in the House of Lords—or other debates.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames on having directed his speech wholly to the Amendment that stands in his name. Nevertheless I put it to the Committee that a one-fifth qualification is not really consistent with the status of being a voting peer and part of the working House in the other place.
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
We have had a number of suggestions put to us about what the basis of compilation should be. We have had fascinating dissertations on all the mathematical legerdemain which might be employed in order to arrive at certain solutions. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that this is really a matter for computerisation. I put it to him that his remarks, although delivered at very great length and with considerable wit and charm, nevertheless contain this fallacy. When persons draft the articles of association of a company they do not resort to computers. They do not have comparative studies of what is done in other companies and other countries. They resort to common sense. This is an issue which turns on a matter of judgment and a matter of common sense. I put it to the Committee—I hope I shall not be thought patronising to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—
§ Mr. Sheldon
If my hon. Friend holds that investigation does not produce results, why did his right hon. Friend go to considerable length in providing information which was then concealed?
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
I should be the last to argue that research is not valuable in this connection. Of course it has a certain persuasive relevance, but at the end of the day it is basically a question of judgment. With the sole exception of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, not one hon. or right hon. Member has argued that a one-third attendance is unreasonable in this connection.
On that account, and also upon merit, bearing in mind that there will be a broad regional representation, that there will be Members, as the Bill now stands, who are not paid, and that there will be Members having a valuable contribution to make who have jobs outside, it is right and proper that the level should remain at one-third. I warmly invite the Committee, therefore, to reject all four Amendments.
§ Mr. John Silkinrose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 61.363
|Division No. 124.]||AYES||[11.23 p.m|
|Albu, Austen||Coe, Denis||Ennals, David|
|Alldritt, Walter||Coleman, Donald||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)|
|Anderson, Donald||Concannon, J. D.||Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)|
|Archer, Peter||Crawshaw, Richard||Fernyhough, E.|
|Ashton, Joe (Basset law)||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Finch, Harold|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Ford, Ben|
|Bence, Cyril||Dalyell, Tam||Forrester John|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Fowler, Gerry|
|Bishop, E. S.||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Fraser, John (Norwood)|
|Blackburn, F.||Davies, G. Elfed (Rnondda, E.)||Freeson, Reginald|
|Boyden, James||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Ginsburg, David|
|Bradley, Tom||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Davies, I for (Gower)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony|
|Brooks, Edwin||Dell, Edmund||Grey, Charles (Durham)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Dempsey, James||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Dewar, Donald||Hamling, William|
|Buchan, Norman||Doig, Peter||Hannan, William|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Dunnett, Jack||Harper, Joseph|
|Cant, R. B.||Eadie, Alex||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Haseldine, Norman|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||English, Michael||Hazell, Bert|
|Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Hilton, W. S.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Rowlands, E.|
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Manuel, Archie||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Marks, Kenneth||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Hoy, James||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Silverman, Julius|
|Hunter, Adam||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Small, William|
|Hynd, John||Millan, Bruce||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Taverne, Dick|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Tinn, James|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Moyle, Roland||Varley, Eric G.|
|Lawson, George||Ogden, Eric||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Oswald, Thomas||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth S'ton)||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Luard, Evan||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Whitaker, Ben|
|Lubbock, Eric||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Pentland, Norman||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|McBride, Neil||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Williams Clifford (Abertillery)|
|McCann, John||Price, William (Rugby)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Probert, Arthur||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.|
|Mackie, John||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Maclennan, Robert||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Mr. Alan Fitch and|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)||Dr. Miller.|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Goodhew, Victor||Norwood, Christopher|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Orme, Stanley|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Hastings, Stephen||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Hay, John||Peyton, John|
|Biffen, John||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Hirst, Geoffrey||Pym, Francis|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hooson, Emlyn||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||lremonger, T. L.||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Booth, Albert||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Roebuck, Roy|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Ryan, John|
|Clegg, Walter||Lee, John (Reading)||Sheldon, Robert|
|Crouch, David||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Silvester, Frederick|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Marten, Neil||Smith, John (London & W'minster)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Maude, Angus||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Mendelson, J. J.||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||More, Jasper||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Mr. Eric S. Heffer and|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Mr. Michael Foot.|
|Goodhart, Philip||Murton, Oscar|
§ Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—364
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 18, Noes 142.365
|Division No. 125.]||AYES||[11.31 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Roebuck, Roy|
|Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)||Ryan, John|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Sheldon, Robert|
|Booth, Albert||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Mikardo, Ian||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Dickens, James||Norwood, Christopher||Mr. Michael Foot and|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Orme, Stanley||Mr. Eric S. Heffer.|
|Albu, Austen||Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)|
|Alldritt, Walter||Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)|
|Anderson, Donald||Buchan, Norman||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)|
|Archer, Peter||Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cant, R. B.||Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)|
|Bence, Cyril||Carmichael, Neil||Davies, Ifor (Gower)|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Coe, Denis||Dell, Edmund|
|Bishop, E. S.||Coleman, Donald||Dempsey, James|
|Blackburn, F.||Concannon, J. D.||Dewar, Donald|
|Boyden, James||Crawshaw, Richard||Doig, Peter|
|Bradley, Tom||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Dunnett, Jack|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Eadie, Alex|
|Brooks, Edwin||Dalyell, Tam||Edwards, William (Merioneth)|
|English, Michael||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Ennals, David||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Probert, Arthur|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Loughlin, Charles||Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.|
|Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Luard, Evan||Robert, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (C'rn'von)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Lubbock, Eric||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Finch, Harold||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)|
|Ford, Ben||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Forrester, John||McBride, Neil||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Fowler, Gerry||McCann, John||Rowlands, E.|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Macdonald, A. H.||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Ginsburg, David||Mackie, John||Silverman, Julius|
|Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||Maclennan, Robert||Small, William|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Grey, Charles (Durham)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Taverne, Dick|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|Hamling, William||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Tinn, James|
|Hannan, William||Manuel, Archie||Urwin, T. W.|
|Harper, Joseph||Marks, Kenneth||Varley, Eric G.|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Haseldine, Norman||Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Hazell, Bert||Millan, Bruce||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Hilton, W. S.||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Whitaker, Ben|
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Moyle, Roland||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Hoy, James||Ogden, Eric||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Hunter, Adam||Oswald, Thomas||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Hynd, John||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Mr. Alan Fitch and|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Pentland, Norman||Dr. Miller.|
|Lawson, George||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.|
§ Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-fifth'.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]366
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 151.367
|Division No. 126.]||AYES||[11.38 p.m|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Goodhart, Philip||Murton, Oscar|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Biff en, John||Hastings, Stephen||Peyton, John|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Hay, John||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Ridley, Hn, Nicholas|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Iremonger, T. L.||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Clegg, Walter||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Crouch, David||Marten, Neil||Smith, John (London & W' minster)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Maude, Angus||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Sir Douglas Glover and|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Mr. Victor Goodhew.|
|Albu, Austen||Coe, Denis||English, Michael|
|Alldritt, Walter||Coleman, Donald||Ennals, David|
|Anderson, Donald||Concannon, J. D.||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)|
|Archer, Peter||Crawshaw, Richard||Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)|
|Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Fernyhough, E.|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Finch, Harold|
|Bence, Cyril||Dalyell, Tam||Ford, Ben|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Forrester, John|
|Bishop, E. S.||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Fowler, Gerry|
|Blackburn, F.||Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Fraser, John (Norwood)|
|Booth, Albert||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Freeson, Reginald|
|Boyden, James||Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)||Ginsburg, David|
|Bradley, Tom||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Dell, Edmund||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony|
|Brooks, Edwin||Dempsey, James||Grey, Charles (Durham)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Dewar, Donald||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Doig, Peter||Hamling, William|
|Buchan, Norman||Dunnett, Jack||Hannan, William|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Harper, Joseph|
|Cant, R. B.||Eadie, Alex||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Haseldine, Norman|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Ellis, John||Hazell, Bert|
|Heffer, Eric S.||McNamara, J. Kevin||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)|
|Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Hilton, W. S.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Manuel, Archie||Sheldon, Robert|
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Marks, Kenneth||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Hoy, James||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Silverman, Julius|
|Hunter, Adam||Mendelson, J. J,||Small, William|
|Hynd, John||Mikardo, Ian||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Millan, Bruce||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Taverne, Dick|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Tinn, James|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Lawson, George||Moyle, Roland||Varley, Eric G.|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Norwood, Christopher|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Ogden, Eric||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Oswald, Thomas||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'ton)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Luard, Evan||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Parker, John (Dagenham)||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Lubbock, Eric||Whitaker, Ben|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|McBride, Neil||Pentland, Norman||Williams, Clifford (Aberttillery)|
|McCann, John||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Price, William (Rugby)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutnerglen)||Probert, Arthur|
|Mackie, John||Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Maclennan, Robert||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Mr. Alan Fitch and Dr. Miller.|
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)).368
§ That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended.—[Mr. Harper.]
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 49.369
|Division No. 127.1||AYES||[11.45 p.m.|
|Alldritt, Walter||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Anderson, Donald||Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Archer, Peter||Fernyhough, E.||McNamara, J. Kevin|
|Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)||Finch, Harold||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Ford, Ben||Mailalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)|
|Bence, Cyril||Forrester, John||Manuel, Archie|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Fowler, Gerry||Marks, Kenneth|
|Bishop, E. S.||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Blackburn, F.||Freeson, Reginald||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Boy den, James||Ginsburg, David||Mendelson, J. J.|
|Bradley, Tom||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||Millan, Bruce|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)|
|Brooks, Edwin||Grey, Charles (Durham)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Hamling, William||Morris, John (Aberavon)|
|Buchan, Norman||Hannan, William||Moyle, Roland|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Harper, Joseph||Ogden, Eric|
|Cant, R. B.||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Oswald, Thomas|
|Carmichael, Neil||Haseldine, Norman||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hazell, Bert||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)|
|Coe, Denis||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Coleman, Donald||Hilton, W. S.|
|Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hoy, James||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Hunter, Adam||Pentland, Norman|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Hynd, John||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.|
|Price, William (Rugby)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hell)||Probert, Arthur|
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.|
|Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy|
|Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)||Lawson, George||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Dell, Edmund||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Rowlands, E.|
|Dempsey, James||Loughlin, Charles||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Dewar, Donald||Luard, Evan||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Doig, Peter||Lubbock, Eric||Silverman, Julius|
|Dunnett, Jack||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Small, William|
|Eadie, Alex||McBride, Neil||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||McCann, John||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Ellis, John||Macdonald, A. H.||Taverne, Dick|
|English, Michael||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|Ennals, David||Mackie, John||Tinn, James|
|Urwin, T. W.||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Varley, Eric G.||Whitaker, Ben||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Watkins, David (Consett)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)||Mr. Alan Fitch and Dr. Miller.|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Pym. Francis|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Heffer, Eric S.||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Biff en, John||Hirst, Geoffrey||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Hooson, Emlyn||Ridley, Hn Nicholas|
|Black, Sir Cyril||lremonger, T. L.||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Roebuck, Roy|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn, Sir Edward||Marten, Neil||Ryan, John|
|Crouch, David||Maude, Angus||Sheldon, Robert|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Mikardo, Ian||Silvester, Frederick|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||More, Jasper||Smith, John (London & W' minster)|
|Eyre, Reginald P||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Murton, Oscar|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Norwood, Christopher||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Sir Douglas Glover and|
|Hastings, Stephen||Peyton, John||Mr. Victor Goodhew.|
|Hay, John||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
§ Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
§ Committee report Proceedings suspended.
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order370
§ (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 43.371
|Division No. 128.]||AYES||[11.56 p.m.|
|Alldritt, Walter||Forrester, John||Mendelson, John|
|Anderson, Donald||Fowler, Gerry||Millan, Bruce|
|Archer, Peter||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Miller, Dr. M. S.|
|Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)||Freeson, Reginald||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Ginsburg, David||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Bence, Cyril||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||Morris, John (Aberavon)|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Moyle, Roland|
|Bishop, E. S.||Grey, Charles (Durham)||Oswald, Thomas|
|Blackburn, F.||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)|
|Boyden, James||Hamling, William||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)|
|Bradley, Tom||Hannan, William||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Harper, Joseph||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Brooks, Edwin||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Pentland, Norman|
|Haseldine, Norman||Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Hazell, Bert||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Probert, Arthur|
|Buchan, Norman||Hilton, W. S.||Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy|
|Cant, R. B.||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hoy, James||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hunter, Adam||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Coe, Denis||Hynd, John||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Coleman, Donald||Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Silverman, Julius|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)||Small, William|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Lawson, George||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Start, David (Roxburgh)|
|Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Taverne, Dick|
|Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)||Loughlin, Charles|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Luard, Evan||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George|
|Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Lubbock, Eric||Tinn, James|
|Davies, Rt. Hn Harold (Leek)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Varley, Eric G.|
|Dell, Edmund||McCann, John||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Dempsey, James||Macdonald, A. H.||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Dewar, Donald||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Mackie, John||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Eadie, Alex||Maclennan, Robert||Whitaker, Ben|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Ells, John||McNamara, J. Kevin||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|English, Michael||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Ennals, David||Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Manuel, Archie||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Fernyhough, E.||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Ford, Ben||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Neil McBride.|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Pym, Francis|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Heffer, Eric S.||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Bitten, John||Iremonger, T. L.||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Birch Rt. Hn. Nigel||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||Marten, Neil||Roebuck, Roy|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Maude, Angus||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Mikardo, Ian||Ryan, John|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||More, Jasper||Silvester, Frederick|
|Eyre, Reginald||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Smith, John (London & W' minster)|
|Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipsw'ch)||Murton, Oscar||Taylor, Edward M. (C'gow, Cathcart)|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Norwood, Christopher||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Hastings, Stephen||Peyton, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hay, John||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Sir Douglas Glover and|
|Mr. Victor Goodhew.|