Skip to main content

Clause 1—(Nationality, Etc)

Volume 656: debated on Thursday 29 March 1962

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end to insert:

(5) In pursuance of an address presented to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament Her Majesty may make an Order in Council substituting for the year nineteen hundred and sixty-five in subsections (2) and (3) of this section such later date as may be specified in such Order in Council.
The Amendment is an attempt to meet a difficulty which was felt by hon. Members on both sides in Standing Committee. I was not a member of the Committee, but I have very carefully studied its proceedings. As the Bill now stands, anyone in the Union of South Africa or coming to South Africa who wishes to elect for British citizenship must make his election within a comparatively short time—in about three and a half years, before the end of 1965. Before the end of that year he must either apply for British citizenship or give notice of the application.

In Committee, my hon. Friends proposed an Amendment which would have secured in effect that there would be no time limit. That was what was referred to as the Irish situation. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) proposed something in the nature of a compromise Amendment. He proposed to extend the time from the end of 1965 to the end of 1967. Both Amendments were resisted by the Minister of State, Home Department.

On 8th March, the hon. and learned Gentleman said this:
"The third point is that, whatever our attitude may be towards certain of the policies of the South African Government, we have made it plain—my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made it plain on several occasions and so have other right hon. Friends of high Cabinet rank—that it would clearly run counter to this country's normal practice in its relations with foreign countries to write into our law special provisions to facilitate the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by people who may now be dissatisfied or who may at a later date become dissatisfied with the country of their birth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 8th March, 1962, c. 53.]

Of course, it would run counter to our normal practice, but the answer is that we are not here dealing with a normal situation. We are dealing with a unique state of affairs. We are considering the position of 10 million people who are being deprived of their status as Her Majesty's subjects without being consulted at all. This is a situation which has never arisen before.

In Committee, hon. Members were very largely concerned, and rightly so, with the South African of British stock who has to make the very painful or difficult choice—whether to remain in the country of his adoption or his family's adoption or whether to opt for British nationality. I invite the House to consider a somewhat different case, namely, the position of the African. Somebody may be in the position of Chief Luthuli, or there may be somebody like, for example, Mr. Oliver Tambo, who has managed to make his escape from the Union. In future, many politically conscious Africans may find life in this police State quite intolerable, but it will not be possible for them to get out.

One of the most repellent features of the South African régime is the restriction it places on those who wish to travel abroad. We all know the sort of case that has arisen; if an African is awarded a scholarship at a British or American university the chances are that he will not be allowed a passport and so will not be able to accept the scholarship. In such circumstances, the only way in which an African can leave South Africa is by defying the law.

We know that some African leaders—I have just referred to one of them—have defied the law successfully. Some of them are in London now and, presumably, if they choose to stay here it will be open to them, after the lapse of five years, to be registered as British citizens. But suppose there are some who, for one reason or another, cannot make their escape. Theoretically, it might be possible for them to lodge their application for citizenship even from the Union of South Africa, and hope that they will be able to come here later, but, in practice, it might be very difficult, or inadvisable, for them to do so.

I am one of those who believe that in that situation it would be far better if we had no final date at all. I do not see why we should not apply the Irish formula to a situation that exists in relation to South Africa. Since, in Committee, the Government refused two other Amendments that were proposed, I now suggest a compromise. We do not know how events will develop in the Union. By 1964 or 1965 a situation may very well arise in which refugees will come to this country from South Africa, and in those circumstances it might be thought desirable to extend the time. My Amendment would enable that to be done without fresh legislation; all that would be needed would be an Address from both Houses of Parliament.

I think that the Amendment would be a little more important than that. We have to make it clear from this House to the people—and particularly the African people—inside the Union that they are not forgotten and are not deserted. If we pass an Amendment of this kind—and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government—we shall make a small contribution to that end.

Those hon. Members who were members of the Committee know that T have not been at all happy about having the date 1965 in the Bill; and that I would have liked a later date. I think that the date in the Bill puts both South Africans of British descent and Africans in a great difficulty, especially as it looks as though that will be about the time of a General Election, but I cannot believe that the solution put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) would be satisfactory.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would leave us in a position in which no one would know whether this House, at a later stage, would vote in favour of a prolongation of the time, and it would make it even more difficult for those in South Africa at the moment who have to make the very difficult decision of whether or not to give notice.

That being so, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to think again about his proposal. I was defeated in my endeavour to prolong the date, but I agree with the Government that this is not a case for the Irish solution put forward in Committee by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I still maintain that the time is too short, but I do not believe that by leaving the position indeterminate we would be aiding those whom we want to help.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that this Amendment does not provide a satisfactory solution, but it is put forward as a compromise between the Amendment proposed in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, and that put forward from our side.

I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman and the House that to accept this Amendment would be a great deal better than to leave the position as it is. It is quite true that there would be some indefiniteness about it, and that neither the residents of the Republic of British or Dutch stock nor the indigenous population, and the Asians and the Coloured people, would have certainty of the period of their opting to become citizens of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth. Even so, that would be a great deal preferable to the position as it is left in the Bill as it stands.

In Committee, I spoke more particularly of the quite unique situation in the Republic, where the vast majority of the population had no voice at all in the decision to leave the Commonwealth. There are about 3 million white voters, and the entire decision was in their hands. There are 8 million Africans. Asians and Coloured persons—the vast majority of the population—and they had no voice in that decision whatsoever. It is not the case that if this Amendment were adopted they would be left in a position that would not be of advantage to them. The possibility would exist of extending British Citizenship to them after five years.

I wish we could think that within a period of five years the situation in the Republic of South Africa will have so changed that they will not need to become refugees from the territory, but I fear that the most optimistic of us would be too optimistic if we imagined that a situation of that kind will come about.

I am particularly anxious "hat this Amendment should be accepted because that would give the Government an opportunity to accept a proposal that I made in Committee—one which the representatives of the Government did not oppose but which they said they were ready to consider. The proposal I then made was that the Government should decide that refugees from the Republic of South Africa should be provided with an international certificate which, in the First World War, was known as a Nansen passport, and which, in the Second World War, was adopted in a new form. Acceptance of this Amendment would not merely allow that solution of the problem to be reached during the first five years, but would allow it to be reached at any time when those rights were extended by the Order in Council that is proposed.

I want to speak very seriously indeed to the Minister on this matter. I have here a letter from the Prime Minister of one of the leading member countries of the Commonwealth, who has seen my suggestion that an international certificate similar to the Nansen passport should be provided for refugees. He states that his reaction to my proposal for something in the nature of a Nansen passport was that it would be a good thing and that he has instructed his delegation at the United Nations to look at this proposal.

I regard this as the due international recognition first of the decision of the Republic of South Africa to withdraw from the Commonwealth, secondly of the resolutions which have been adopted in this House, and, thirdly, of, the resolutions which have been adopted in the United Nations General Assembly. This is the kind of international recognition which should be given to the wrongs of the great majority of the people of the Republic in the fact that their country has left the Commonwealth without them having any opportunity to record their vote because they are outlaws in their own country.

I hope that the Minister of State will consider the Amendment along with encouraging the Government to provide an international certificate to the outlawed peoples of the Republic of South Africa in the way I suggested in Committee—a suggestion which, as I have pointed out, has the very striking support of the Prime Minister of one of our largest Commonwealth countries.

4.30 p.m.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) said, when moving the Amendment, that it provided a compromise solution. I have no doubt that he would be the first to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that it is, therefore, not altogether a satisfactory one.

The question before the House is not whether this is a completely satisfactory solution, but the rather simpler question of whether a closed door is better than an open one. The merit of the Amendment is that it keeps the door open and, for my part, I beseech the Minister of State to get away from the kind of argument he deployed in Committee; that the sort of Amendments proposed by my hon. Friends to deal with this problem represented a considerable departure from the previous pattern of legislation dealing with these matters. All hon. Members would agree that it does represent a considerable departure, but the whole situation is unprecedented. It is a tragic situation and something that calls for new solutions.

We have before us the problems created by two communities—the African community in South Africa, for whom life is being made intolerable by the Government of that country, and the white Africans of, to use a general term, British extraction for whom life may be made intolerable at any future time. We know that the situation in South Africa is intensely dangerous. The situation with which the Amendment seeks to deal may arise at any time and, therefore, I urge the Government, purely from humane considerations, to get away from the technicalities of precedents and to consider by what means they can help to deal with this potentially tragic situation.

I hope that the Minister of State will accept the Amendment. We tried hard in Committee to get some response from him by tabling various Amendments, but we were not very successful. The Minister will recall that his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) appealed strongly for him to extend the date for, I believe, another two years. That suggestion was turned down with the argument that there should be a time limit but that the one in the Bill was reasonable. "After all," said the Minister of State, "why argue about a year or two?"

The Minister does not seem to realise that that was exactly our case. It was also the case submitted by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. "Why argue about a year or two?" is exactly what we were saying, for we cannot see what the situation will be in 1965. It may be that the situation will have cleared up by then and that all will be happy and bright in South Africa. But does any hon. Member really believe that that will be so? The Amendment now before us is an attempt to meet the situation.

Although the Minister of State said "Why argue about a year or two?" he would not extend the date for that additional time. He refused to do so and he sat rigid, determined to make no alteration. The Minister may again say that the Government do not want to extend it for a year or two, but if he accepts the Amendment he will give the Government an opportunity of reviewing the situation in the light of events existing in the future.

Thus the Amendment provides a reasonable compromise. It does away with the argument about the meaning of "a year or two" and it gives the Government an opportunity of seeing what the situation is. It does not tie their hands or require them to ask the House to grant an extension or fresh legislation. It is a simple solution which gives flexibility to a situation which may, in the future, be dangerous for those in South Africa and harrowing for those in this country.

The fact that South Africa has left the Commonwealth is full of regrettable consequences. I greatly understand the feelings of hon. Members who have spoken to the Amendment. They have made yet another attempt to overcome the difficulty that millions of people—8 million African people—in South Africa will eventually, as a result of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth, become aliens and those even who do not wish to remain in South Africa may find themselves unable to get away from there.

Believe me, in our attitude towards the Bill we are not ignoring all those facts. But, alas, we must face the consequences of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth.

The hon. and learned Gentleman uses the phrase "We must face the consequences of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth." Why, when there is the possibility of human tragedy, do the Government stand rigid on this point while we try our utmost to make them realise the reality of the situation? After all, the business interests will retain their Imperial preferences and there is also the sugar agreement. If those can be retained, then surely, when we are dealing with a matter of human beings, we should get a better response from the Government than we are getting?

I am dealing with the question of nationality and I do not think that that is easily mixed up with such questions as sugar agreements and British preferences.

Why should there be concessions in one direction and not in another? Why do the Government make vast concessions to one set of interests and no concessions at all to another?

That is completely untrue. If the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) would study the Amendment he would see that it deals with the question of extending the time for taking advantage of the nationality concessions that we have put into the Bill in order to acknowledge the fact that there are many people in South Africa who may wish to retain their connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies.

My hon. Friend has a perfectly fair point. He has pointed out that where it is a question of transitional hardship resulting to business interests and sugar interests the Government have stepped in and have given concessions, but that where it is a question of transitional hardship to individuals on account of nationality the Government have taken a stiffer line.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will examine the nationality concessions in the Bill. He will find one under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule relating to Section 12 (6) of the British Nationality Act, 1948. The concession which we are giving there is one which we should be giving to people who become aliens, and it is a concession which will not be enjoyed by other people in the Commonwealth. I should have thought that to that extent we are going out of our way to recognise the position of people in South Africa. I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about this—we all do in different ways—but I do not consider that he has made a fair or valid point.

May I now attempt to answer—I hope without too much interruption, because we are not in Committee—the points which have been made by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and other hon. Members. At first sight, this looks like a valiant attempt to reach a compromise, but, as I shall show, it is not a satisfactory one—my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has already pointed out one of the disadvantages—and, indeed, it could operate in such a way that it would not be a compromise at all.

The knowledge that the concessions which are available in the Bill might be extended would surely introduce an undesirable element of uncertainty. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that whenever we are legislating it is our duty to try to achieve certainty, not only as to meaning but as to effect and as to the application of the proposed law.

Is there not a serious danger that if we made this provision for the extension of the time limit of the concession, which is three years and seven months beyond 31st May, false hopes might be raised? This could result in serious hardship to individuals who mistakenly calculated on an extension which, in the event, was not introduced. I know that hon. Members who have spoken are anxious—and they made this even more clear in Committee—to provide for the possibility of future developments in South Africa.

Of course, if such a factor were accepted as relevant, there would be no justification for any time at all, so we should be no further forward. But surely the very important and fundamental matter that we have to consider on this Amendment is that it is necessary that the intended scope of these transitional provisions should be immediately apparent, that their meaning, the opportunities that they give and the time within which the opportunities can be exercised should be apparent.

This concession under which South Africans will be allowed to have a privilege normally exclusive to Commonwealth citizens is certainly justifiable as a temporary measure but to leave the terminal date open indefinitely would surely blur the distinction which we properly have to draw, whenever we are talking about nationality, between people who are British subjects or Commonwealth citizens on the one hand and people who are foreigners on the other hand. It really would undermine one of the basic principles of the Bill if we allowed this concession to dangle indefinitely into the future.

It would undermine the basic principle that it should be clearly apparent that South Africans, as citizens of what has become a foreign country, should within the foreseeable future be treated as foreign people—we say from 31st May—but that for a reasonable period—we think three years and seven months in the circumstances is not unreasonable—they should have these special opportunities of registering as British subjects but that finality must be reached some day.

As I said in Standing Committee, there is no particular magic about the date that we have chosen, namely, the end of 1965. That in itself, as I pointed out, is a reasonable compromise. It is a compromise between the interests of the individuals concerned and the logical result of South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth. We really cannot have the best of both worlds.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) once more raised the question—and I am glad he did because it is an important question—of how those people who are unable to take advantage of the concessions for one reason or another—perhaps because they are prevented from leaving South Africa—could eventually take advantage of them by means of the modern equivalent of a Nansen passport. The matter is sufficiently important for me not merely to refer to what was said in Committee but to put it on the record again.

Any alien who is in the United Kingdom, who is Stateless or cannot get a passport from his own Government, can obtain a travel document from the Home Office in accordance with the international conventions on the status of refugees and the status of stateless persons. South Africans in this country will benefit from these arrangements equally with other people.

There is only one point that I need add, and it is this. Under the international conventions it is the practice—indeed, it is part of the conventions—that those documents should only be issued by the Government of the country where the person is at the time that he applies for them. Even the original Nansen passports, therefore, could only be issued by the Government in this country in favour of people who were already here. That rule has prevailed all through these years, and it is still the rule. I think that it is the most sensible rule possible. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman and meets the points which he was making.

May I put these two points? I welcomed the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement when he said that this arrangement will apply to refugees in this country. Could he again give the assurance which he gave in Committee, so that it may be on the record, that it will also apply to refugees in British Protectorates and the colonies?

My second point is this. I recognise the very considerable generosity with which the international convention is applied in this country. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to get it accepted by the United Nations for general adoption in the case of refugees from South Africa.

On the last point, it would be quite improper for me to express a view. In any event, I think that it would be a view for the Foreign Office to express. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, these are Home Office travel documents about which I have been speaking, and I have been describing the Home Office practice. As I understand the position, although I think this is a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the same practice applies in the case of the Governments of different Colonial Territories and Protectorates.

The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) and the hon. and learned Member for Crewe beseeched me not to rely upon precedent in this matter. They will have noticed that in putting forward the answer to the Amendment I have not relied upon precedent at all. Indeed, there is only one precedent, and that is the Burma one. It was considered in Committee for what it is worth, and considered mainly from the point of view of whether three years seven months was reasonable or not.

I concede that there is no precedent for what is happening here, and I should not like it to be thought that the Government's case in any sense relies on precedent, but, at the same time, when we are legislating in an important matter it is right to point out the general principles on which we have legislated on a similar matter in the past in order that we do not utterly ignore those principles. One of those principles is that when legislating on nationality matters we do not attempt to forecast the events, for good or for evil, which may take place in some foreign country at some future stage. That is as far as I wish to go.

I have spoken at some length, because I realise that this is an important matter, but for the reasons that I have given, we do not regard the Amendment as a compromise in practice because it could merely operate in such a way that people thought there would be no time limit at all, and in any event even to the extent that it could be regarded as a compromise, it is not one which we could accept.

We on this side of the House are very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) for coming to our assistance after our unavailing efforts in Committee to make the Bill more lenient in these respects—efforts which were not confined to this side, but extended to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Our general view is that the Bill in its two parts is exactly wrong. It is rigid in this part dealing with persons, where it ought to be lenient, and it is lenient in the later part dealing with property, where it ought to be rigid. Therefore, we see no inconsistency whatever in attempting to amend it in the one sense on this early part and in the opposite sense on the later part.

There have been three propositions on the question of the time limit. That of the right hon. Gentleman was simply to extend it by a fixed period. We pressed in Committee that there should be no period. Now my hon. and learned Friend has this ingenious proposal that there should be no fixed time limit but that there should be the possibility in the hands of the Government of extending the time limit.

The Minister of State has given us two reasons against our proposal. One is that it would introduce an element of uncertainty into the position and would raise false hopes. There is some force in that, and, frankly, I should prefer to have no time limit. However, I do not think that there is really very much in it. After all, it is better to give a man some hope than no hope at all.

I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman at all when he says that we ought not to take into account the uncertainty of the future situation in South Africa. On the contrary, I think we ought to take that into account, because we cannot possibly foresee what it will be. It might be unnecessary, of course, to have this provision, but it might be desperately necessary to have it. Therefore, I find very little force in that argument.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's other argument is the one he used in Committee, that this is a grave departure from our general principles in dealing with those who have become aliens—citizens of other countries. One has, of course, to admit right away that it is; but this is an utterly exceptional situation and we believe that it is sufficiently exceptional and that the emergencies which we apprehend are sufficiently dire for it to be well worth while to make this very considerable departure.

After all, in this case, where these tragic racial conflicts have developed, is it not a fine and inspiring concept that this country should, as it were, be a permanent country of refuge for those who were until yesterday our fellow citizens? We find that something which it would be highly desirable for the Government to concede. They concede it for a temporary period. Let them go the whole way and concede it, in principle at any rate, and as a possibility, for an indefinite period.

I was very interested in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) about the revival of something in the nature of a Nansen passport and the support that he has received for that proposal. If something is not done in the form that we propose here, I should like to see that. Of the two, I think I should like to see the British passport serve in this respect. I should like the man who is a refugee from political persecution in South Africa to find his refuge in the resumption of his British passport.

I think that this is something which the Government agree is good in that respect. It is something which the Government have conceded for a period of time. Let them now go a little further and concede the possibility of this for an indefinite period. We on this side of the House very strongly support the Amendment.

Division No. 137.]

AYES

[5.0 p.m.

Abse, LeoHarper, JosephMonslow, Walter
Ainsley, WilliamHart, Mrs. JudithMoody, A. S.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Hayman, F. H.Moyle, Arthur
Beaney, AlanHealey, DenisNoel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.Hilton, A. V.Oram, A. E.
Bence, CyrilHolman, PercyOwen, Will
Benson, Sir GeorgeHolt, ArthurPannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Blackburn, F.Houghton, DouglasPargiter, G. A.
Boardman, H.Hoy, James H.Parker, John
Bottomley, A. G.Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Pavitt, Laurence
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)Hunter, A. E.Prentice, R. E.
Brockway, A. FennerHynd, H. (Accrington)Probert, Arthur
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Hynd, John (Attercliffe)Randall, Harry
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Irving, Sydney (Dartford)Rankin, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)Jay, Rt. Hon. DouglasRedhead, E. C.
Castle, Mrs. BarbaraJenkins, Roy (Stechford)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Cliffe, MichaelJohnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)Ross, William
Cronin, JohnJones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Crosland, AnthonyJones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)Short, Edward
Darling, GeorgeJones, T. W. (Merioneth)Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)Kelley, RichardSilverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Harold (Leek)Kenyon, CliffordSpriggs, Leslie
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Steele, Thomas
Deer, GeorgeKing, Dr. HoraceStewart, Michael (Fulham)
Dodds, NormanLever, L. M. (Ardwick)Stonehouse, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. JohnLipton, MarcusStones, William
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.Lubbock, EricStrachey, Rt. Hon. John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)Mabon, Dr. J. DicksonSymonds, J. B.
Evans, AlbertMcCann, JohnThomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Fernyhough, E.MacColl, JamesThomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fitch, AlanMcInnes, JamesTimmons, John
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)Mackie, John (Enfield, East)Wade, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)McLeavy, FrankWainwright, Edwin
Forman, J. C.MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)Warbey, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. HughMacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Wilkins, W. A.
Ginsburg, DavidMallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)Willey, Frederick
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Manuel, ArchieWilliams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gourlay, HarryMarsh, RichardWoof, Robert
Greenwood, AnthonyMason, RoyZilliacus, K.
Grey, CharlesMayhew, Christopher
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Mendelson, J. J.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gunter, RayMillan, BruceMr. G. H. R. Rogers and
Hamilton, William (West Fife)Milne, EdwardMr. Lawson.
Hannan, WilliamMitchison, G. R.

NOES

Agnew, Sir PeterBrowne, Percy (Torrington)Farr, John
Aitken, W. T.Bryan, PaulFell, Anthony
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)Bullard, DenysFinlay, Graems
Allason, JamesBullus, Wing Commander EricFisher, Nigel
Arbuthnot, JohnCampbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Ashton, Sir HubertCampbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)
Atkins, HumphreyCarr, Compton (Barons Court)Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barber, AnthonyChannon, H. P. G.Freeth, Denzil
Barlow, Sir JohnChataway, ChristopherGammans, Lady
Batsford, BrianChichester-Clark, R.Gilmour, Sir John
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)Glover, Sir Douglas
Beamish, Col. Sir TuftonCollard, RichardGoodhart, Philip
Bell, RonaldCostain, A. P.Goodhew, Victor
Berkeley, HumphryCoulson, MichaelGower, Raymond
Bevins, Rt. Hon. ReginaldCourtney, Cdr. AnthonyGresham Cooke, R.
Bidgood, John C.Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir OliverHall, John (Wycombe)
Biffen, JohnCurran, CharlesHarrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Biggs-Davison, Johnde Ferranti, BasilHarvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)
Bishop, F. P.D'gby, Simon WingfieldHastings, Stephen
Black, Sir CyrilDonaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Bossom, CliveDrayson, G. B.Hendry, Forbes
Box, DonaldDuncan, Sir JamesHicks Beach, Maj. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir DavidHill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Braine, BernardElliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Brooke, Rt. Hon. HenryEmmet, Hon. Mrs. EvelynHirst, Geoffrey
Brooman-White, R.Errington, Sir EricHobson, Sir John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)Farey-Jones, F. W.Hocking, Philip N.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 192.

Holland, PhilipMiscamphell, N.Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hornby, R. P.Montgomery, FergusSteward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)More, Jasper (Ludlow)Stodart, J. A.
Hughes-Young, MichaelMorrison, JohnStudholme, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael ClarkMott-Radclyffe, Sir CharlesSummers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Nicholson, Sir GodfreyTapsell, Peter
Jennings, J. C.Noble, MichaelTaylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir RichardTaylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Osborn, John (Hallam)Temple, John M.
Johnson Smith, GeoffreyPage, Graham (Crosby)Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Kerby, Capt. HenryPage, John (Harrow, West)Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Kerr, Sir HamiltonPannell, Norman (Kirkdale)Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Kirk, PeterPearson, Frank (Clitheroe)Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Lagden, GodfreyPeel, JohnThornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Leather, E. H. C.Pilkington, Sir RichardTilney, John (Wavertree)
Leavey, J. APitman, Sir JamesTouche, Rt. Hon, Sir Gordon
Leburn, GilmourPitt, Miss EdithTurner, Colin
Legge-Bourke, Sir HarryPott, PercivallTurton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Price, David (Eastleigh)van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lindsay, Sir MartinProudfoot, WilfredVaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Litchfield, Capt. JohnPym, FrancisVosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Longden, GilbertQuennell, Miss J. M.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
McAdden, StephenRedmayne, Rt. Hon. MartinWall, Patrick
McLaren, MartinRees, HughWard, Dame Irene
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)Renton, DavidWebster, David
McLean, Neil (Inverness)Ridley, Hon. NicholasWells, John (Maidstone)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)Whitelaw, William
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
McMaster, Stanley R.Ropner, Col. Sir LeonardWise, A. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Maddan, MartinRussell, RonaldWolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maginnis, John E.St. Clair, M.Woodhouse, C. M.
Maitland, Sir JohnScott-Hopkins, JamesWoodnutt, Mark
Marshall, DouglasSharples, RichardWorsley, Marcus
Marten, NeilShaw, M.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)Shepherd, WilliamTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.Skeet, T. H. H.Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)Mr. Michael Hamilton.
Mills, StrattonSmithers, Peter