Skip to main content

Constitution Of Rhodesia And Nyasaland (Amendment)

Volume 654: debated on Wednesday 21 February 1962

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

3.45 p.m.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland by providing that immigration and emigration shall be a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature shall not have, and the legislature of each territory shall have, power to make laws.
May I make one preliminary observation. This is the third occasion upon which this Motion has appeared upon the Order Paper. It appeared twice in earlier weeks, and on each occasion it could not be discussed because of the operation of the Guillotine on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. I do not think that it is fully realised in the House that one of the many objections to the Guillotine procedure is that it operates to deprive private Members of one of the few rights that they still fully enjoy, the right to bring forward a Motion of this kind at the commencement of Public Business.

Coming to the Motion, when, in 1953, the Constitution of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was set up, and the Federation was created, it provided for a tripartite division of functions between the Federal Legislature, the Territorial Legislatures, and the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom.

As hon. Members will recall, it was specifically provided in the Preamble to the Constitution that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue under the special protection of Her Majesty and should enjoy separate Governments for so long as their respective peoples so desired. It was also specifically provided that those Governments should be subject to the ultimate authority of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, which means subject to the ultimate authority of this House.

It was, therefore, contemplated that the Federation itself should not be a completely sovereign State, but that its foreign relations, except in so far as they might be delegated to the Federation, should still be the concern of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. But, at the same time, provision was made that immigration and emigration into or out of the Federal territory should be an exclusively Federal subject.

Those various arrangements have created an extremely anomalous situation. The fact is that although the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs is still answerable to this House for the administration of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, he has no authority to say who may enter those territories, or who may be allowed to remain. This matter is within the sole discretion of the Federal Government. Looking back over the last nine years, I suggest that this power, which was entrusted to the Federal Government, has been used on a number of occasions in a most capricious and arbitrary manner. I have a number of examples, but I will content myself with a few.

In 1954, it was announced that there was to be a complete ban on Africans from South Africa entering the Federation. In 1958, a Miss Rosalynde Ainslie was visiting the Federation. She was the United Kingdom representative of the quarterly newspaper South Africa, published in the Union. She was officially asked to leave the Rhodesian Federation, and a spokesman for the Federal Ministry of Home Affairs said that she was asked to leave under Section 51 of the Immigration Act.

That Section, among other things, states that anyone who is deemed to be an undesirable inhabitant, on information received from other Governments, may be declared a prohibited immigrant and asked to leave. It was quite clear that the information in that case was received from the Union Government. In other words, this lady was asked to leave a British territory because she was persona non grata to the Government of the Union of South Africa.

A further case, a little later in 1958, concerned a Mr. A. E. Lewis. He had been on the staff of the Commonwealth Section of the T.U.C. in this country. In 1955, he was sent by the Colonial Office to Aden, to advise on labour problems. In 1958, he was appointed General Secretary of the Northern Rhodesia European Mineworkers' Union, but was refused a permit to enter the Federation.

A month later in the same year Commander Fox-Pitt was refused permission to enter the Federation. He had served for no less than nineteen years as district and provincial commissioner in Northern Rhodesia. He retired because of a disagreement with the African policy of the Northern Rhodesian Government, and particularly over their refusal to allow Africans to grow a certain type of tobacco, which the Northern Rhodesian Government thought that only Europeans should be allowed to grow. After a lapse of eight years in retirement. Commander Fox-Pitt expressed a wish to return to the Federation, but he was declared a prohibited immigrant.

I now remind the House of a case which concerned us rather more closely—the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). The House will remember that he was in Northern Rhodesia—a territory for which this House is responsible—and he was about to fly to Nyasaland—another territory for which this House is responsible. He was a United Kingdom Member of Parliament, exercising his constitutional responsibilities, but he was declared a prohibited immigrant. Each of us is responsible for what goes on in those Protectorates—

—but there is an extraordinary position, which seems to trouble hon. Members opposite not at all, namely, that a Member of this House cannot go to a territory for which the House is responsible except with the permission of another Government.

Another case concerned the Rev. Tom Colvin. He had been employed for years in Nyasaland, and had been appointed to the post of General Secretary of the Presbyterian Church of Central Africa. While on leave in this country he was informed that he had been declared a prohibited immigrant and would not be allowed to return.

Those are only a few of many cases that I could quote. When we consider those cases and the surrounding circumstances, I submit that the inference is clear enough: people are forbidden to enter the Federation, or are ordered to leave, not because they have a criminal record, or are likely to break the law, and not because their characters are in any way impugned, but because their political views, or what are supposed to be their political views, do not commend them to the Federal authorities.

I now turn to the second aspect of the matter. We all remember how, a few weeks ago, the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations made a request that United Nations observers should be stationed along the frontier between Northern Rhodesia and the Congo. This matter clearly comes within the scope of external relations; that is to say, it is a matter for which the Government of this country—the Government represented in this House—are responsible. But the power to issue or withhold entry permits rested with the Federal Government, and the decision was taken by the Federal Government.

I remind the House of a communiqué issued in Salisbury at the beginning of January, because the words are extremely significant. It said:
"In view of the established policy of the Federal Government, action which it has taken to ensure that this is implemented and the failure of the United Nations authorities to substantiate their allegations, the Federal Government does not consider that there is any justification for the acting Secretary-General's request to station United Nations' observers on Federal territory, and has accordingly informed the British Government that it must reject his proposal"
It said that "it"—that is, the Federal Government—"must reject his proposal." Some hon. Members may recall an extremely pertinent comment by The Times Commonwealth Correspondent, who said:
"As it is, whatever the British Government say in their reply, it will appear that they have been moved entirely by what Sir Roy would permit, and that the only scope for British initiative has been in toning down the language"
That is a perfectly fair comment. The decision was taken by the Federal Government and by that Government alone, and all that Her Majesty's Government could do was to combine the rôles of sub-editor and postman. I submit that the experience of these years has shown that while the control of emigration and immigration remains with the Federal authorities the British Government cannot properly discharge their responsibilities either to the people of the two Protectorates or to the United Nations.

I now come to the third aspect of the matter. It is high time that this House emphasised that the responsibility for future constitutional arrangements in Central Africa rests here, in Westminster, and nowhere else. I say that because of the remarks attributed to Sir Roy Welensky by The Times on the 13th of this month. It reported him as saying:
"The British Parliament could not use its legal power to provide for dissolution of the Federation except at the request or with the consent of the Parliament of the Federation"
When I saw that, I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister, and in the reply which he gave me, last week, he said:
"I have seen reports of Sir Roy Welensky's speech. As the text makes clear he was referring to the Joint Announcement of April, 1957, by the British and Federal Governments; apart from that no assurance has been given by Her Majesty's Government about legislation affecting the Federation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 184.]
I now remind the House of the terms of the announcement in 1957. It said:
"The United Kingdom recognise the existence of a convention applicable to the present stage of the constitutional evolution of the Federation, whereby the United Kingdom Government in practice does not initiate any legislation to amend or to repeal any Federal Act or to deal with any matter included within the competence of the Federal Legislature except at the request of the Federal Government"
There are two things to say about that announcement. First, it is a convention, and nothing more. Secondly, it certainly cannot bind all future British Governments never to make a change except with the consent of the Federal Government in Salisbury. In this connection, I quote the comment made by the Monckton Commission. The Commission said:
"This Announcement refers only to powers conferred upon the Federal Legislature by the Constitution and it cannot affect the legislative authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to provide for the future constitutional development of the Federation and, for this purpose, to make any necessary amendments to the Constitution itself"
The Commission went on to say:
"It is essential that this right should be retained"
It seems to many of us, at any rate on this side of the House, first, that there is no doubt, as the Monckton Commission said, that this right should be retained, and secondly, that it is high time that the right should be exercised. It is for that reason that my hon. Friends and I seek leave to introduce the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

I know that it is unusual for a member of the Government to rise to oppose a Private Member's Motion for leave to introduce a Bill. But it is not usual for a private Member to seek leave under the Ten Minutes Rule, as it is normally called, to introduce a Bill of this nature.

Its object is, as the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has pointed out, to amend the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Any Bill with such an object, limited in character though it may be, is of immediate concern to Her Majesty's Government and that is the reason why I rise, and also, I should make clear, why I rise to oppose its introduction.

The hon. and learned Member seeks to remove from the Federation power to legislate in respect of immigration and emigration and to transfer that power to the Legislatures of the Territories. He has advanced a number of arguments in support of his proposal. I will not take up the time of the House, either in commenting on the cases to which he has referred us or upon his arguments, but it should not be assumed that I accept them at all. I shall ask the House to reject this Motion on the ground that it would be quite wrong to amend the Constitution piecemeal as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes.

The present Constitution is contained in the Order in Council of 1st August, 1953, made under the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Act of that year. Under that Constitution it is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, for the Federal Government, and the Federal Government alone, to make laws with regard to immigration and emigration. By Article 99 of that Constitution, provision is made for a review of the Constitution by a conference consisting of delegates from the Federation, from each of the three Territories and from the United Kingdom.

As the House knows, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to it, in preparation for that conference the Monckton Commission was appointed, an advisory Commission, to review the whole Constitution. Its Report was presented in 1960, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not cited, and I cannot find, any passage in it supporting the proposal for the amendment of the Constitution on the lines he suggests—

—envisaged in Article 99, met on 5th December, 1960, and was adjourned on 17th December, 1960. Since then there has been much discussion, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has only just returned from the Federation, where he has been for some time for the very purpose of discussing the whole question of the review of the Constitution with a view to a decision being reached on the best way to make progress. He indicated on his departure that he expected to discuss a wide range of questions, constitutional, political and economic, and I am sure that it is—it certainly should be—the hope of us all that those discussions will prove fruitful.

Order. It is not our practice to allow interventions in the discussion on a Ten Minutes Rule Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not our practice, if I may say so respectfully, to have the Attorney-General intervene in a matter of this sort.

It is not forbidden by the practice of the House, even though it be odd, but we do not allow interventions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an extraordinary occasion from the point of view which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has mentioned. I think that in a matter which, as the Attorney-General has indicated by his intervention, is of great constitutional importance, it might be that, with your permission and with his permission, we might be allowed to put the constitutional issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—of whether this House is able to abrogate the Constitution of the Federation.

Order. I did not mean any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that we should adhere to our practice about not intervening, in order not to take up more time than we need to.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is a great deal of significance in this. If Ministers of the Crown are to intervene on these occasions to make very important statements about which the whole House is concerned, and about which some of us are particularly concerned, is not it our right to put questions to them in the course of the discussion?

Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on this? What opportunity will hon Members have, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is concluded, to question him?

If the hon. Member cares to look at the Standing Order, he will see that it is laid down in terms what I can allow.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I submit this to you? The Attorney-General has conceded, and we all know, that it is most unusual on an occasion of this kind for an opposition speech to be made from the Front Bench, with all the weight of the Government authority, against a private Member who is seeking leave to introduce a Bill. I am not putting to you that there is—

Order. I am being addressed on a point of order, and although receptive to them, I am not receptive to more than one point of order at a time.

I was saying that I am not suggesting that there is anything in the slightest degree improper in the Attorney-General doing what he is doing. What I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order, is that if he does think it right to take this unusual course, then there also ought to go with that election a willingness to submit himself to the ordinary rules of debate within the limited time.

I think that, for once in a way, the hon. Gentleman has been guilty of not hearing. That is the precise point which I dealt with at the invitation of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I am sorry, but I must adhere to my Ruling that we do not have interventions in speeches under the Ten Minutes Rule.

May I put my point of order, Mr. Speaker? It is this. Has there been one point of order which was strictly a point of order on this occasion so far?

I think that it is strictly a point of order to submit to me that either the rule is not such as I stated it to be, or that there is a circumstance here which constitutes an exception to it. I do not agree with either proposition, but I think that they were points of order.

May I follow up that proposition? I think that we are all agreed that this is an exceptional circumstance—

Order. I do not think that I ought, in the interests of the House, to hear more about this. I have indicated that in my view there are no circumstances which make this an exception to our rule not to have interventions.

May I rise on a point of order to ask, in view of the speech being made by the Attorney-General, which is, as I understand it, exceptional—and may be without precedent—whether you, Mr. Speaker, will consider whether there should not be a change in the practice of the House, to which you have adhered and which we have all accepted hitherto, that hon. Members do not interrupt speeches?

I submit to you that the reason for asking you to reconsider your decision is that while we are all ready to accept that in the constant interplay of speeches between hon. Members on either side there should be no interruption, when a Minister of the Crown comes here, with all his authority, to state the position and has, in the view of some of us at least, stated the position on behalf of the Government, and stated it fully, there should be an opportunity given for him to be questioned on the statement that he has made.

I think that I can make it plain. If the hon. Member has suggestions for the reform of our procedure and will take proper steps, we can no doubt discuss them, but I can hardly see that that point arises now.

Further to that point of order. I am sorry that we did not have advance information about this. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you had information that we were to be faced with an unprecedented position. If we are faced with an unprecedented position, it is unsatisfactory in some ways to be told that we cannot challenge it now but must do so later. I understand that there is no Standing Order of the House which covers this point. It is a practice of the House. What we are asking is that, with your permission, if the Attorney-General were willing to give way on this occasion, he should be questioned and you should then be willing to reconsider your Ruling.

I do hope that I have made it quite clear that I do not wish myself to create a precedent against the practice. Therefore, I say that if the House chose to take some steps of substance to change its practice we could discuss the matter on that occasion, but it does not arise now.

Further to that point of order. May I ask you this question? As there is no Standing Order on this matter, if the Attorney-General were willing to give way, would you allow a question to be put to him?

I have repeatedly said that I do not want to create any precedent for interventions in debate under the Standing Order.

On a point of order. In my submission, the position seems to be that the Attorney-General, by taking an unprecedented course, is making a statement on behalf of the Government without the usual conditions of such a statement, that questions can be put on it. Therefore, would you accept a Motion now, Mr. Speaker, "That the right hon. and learned Gentleman be no longer heard"?

No, I would not accept such a Motion. I do not want to hear any more points of order about this. I want the House to get on with its business.

I think that the House knows that usually I am not reluctant to give way, but I did inform myself of the situation in regard to this rule. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) might listen to what I have to say. I rose because of the exceptional nature of this proposal—a proposal to alter the Constitution of a country—which is something that certainly commands the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It would be wrong to seek to amend the Constitution in this one particular now. When decisions are reached as to what, if any, changes there are to be in the Constitution that would be the time to decide who shall have and who shall not have power to control immigration and emigration. Such a proposal now that we should legislate in this one respect and without regard to the final pattern of the Constitution is both ill-timed and misconceived. I really cannot believe—

I think that the hon. Member must have forgotten that I was compelled to rule that we do not have interventions in these speeches.

I have had occasion to explain to the House that I do not want to depart from our practice of not having interventions in speeches under the Ten Minutes Rule. I am very sorry, but I must insist on that.

On a point of order. I want to deal with a quite different point. As we are faced with a quite unprecedented situation, would it be possible for us to raise this matter tomorrow as a question for you to consider? There has been a practice that never before has a Minister of the Crown intervened in such a debate. If we are considering the practice of the House, we have to consider what that practice has been. One practice might depend on another and in a debate like this a Minister of the Crown does not make a statement on behalf of the Government.

As this is unprecedented, could we now have your assurance, Sir, that we could raise this matter with you tomorrow without it being said that we were losing our right because we had not raised it at the first opportunity?

I thought that hon. Members had been raising it as hard as they could. They have had every opportunity of raising it and I have ruled about it. In those circumstances, I do not think that I have any power to depart from the practice of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is said to be a practice which is not explicitly laid down. If the Attorney-General were to give way when one of my hon. Friends rose, would you be obliged to tell him to get up again, or would the intervention then proceed?

It is not like that. I have myself laid it down. I cannot give the reference at the moment, but I have so ruled before. It is part of the practice of the House.

Further to that point of order. May I respectfully remind you, Sir, that, although it is unusual for interventions of this kind to be made on these occasions, it is not unknown? In fact, it has frequently happened and it has never before been laid down that the rule is rigidly against them. I could cite now, without wanting to take up too much time, three occasions on which I have known interventions of this kind to take place.

I can remember it happening, but I have no reason to think that it was in order when it did.

I wish to conclude by saying that I cannot believe that it is in the true interests of anyone in this country or in Rhodesia and Nyasaland that we should make the piecemeal alteration which the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich has suggested. He suggested that he should be given leave to introduce his Bill for this purpose and that the House should discuss it without the consultations now going on being completed. It is an ill-timed proposal—

I ask the House to reject the Motion. The hon. and learned Member has used this opportunity to make the speech that he might have made if the Motion on the Order Paper had been called before. Despite the irrelevant interruptions by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I ask the House to reject the Motion.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to Erskine May, on page 388, on this point you, in your discretion, may either put the Question under discussion, or put the Question, "That the debate be now adjourned". In view of the unprecedented things which appear to have occurred, I submit that the proper Question now should be, "That the debate be now adjourned", so that the exceptional circumstances which arise may be reconsidered.

I do not take the view that that is right. I propose to put the Question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May l draw your attention to Standing Order No. 12, which says, on this point:

"If such Motions be opposed, Mr. Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves and from the Member who opposes any such motion respectively, shall put either the question thereon, or the question, that the debate be now adjourned"
May I respectfully submit that, in view of the unprecedented nature of the Attorney-General's intervention, this could be a suitable occasion for the debate now to be adjourned?

Division No. 94.]

AYES

[4.20 p.m.

Ainsley, WilliamHilton, A. V.Parkin, B. T.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)Holman, PercyPaton, John
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Holt, ArthurPavitt, Laurence
Awbery, StanHoughton, DouglasPentland, Norman
Beaney, AlanHoy, James H.Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)Popplewell, Ernest
Bence, CyrilHughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Probert, Arthur
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Randall, Harry
Benson, Sir GeorgeHunter, A. E.Rankin, John
Blackburn, F.Hynd, H. (Accrington)Redhead, E. C.
Blyton, WilliamIrving, Sydney (Dartford)Reid, William
Bowles, FrankJay, Rt. Hon. DouglasRoberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boyden, JamesJenkins, Roy (Stechford)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)Robertson, John (Paisley)
Brockway, A. FennerJones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Jones, Dan (Burnley)Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)Ross, William
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Callaghan, JamesKelley, RichardShinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Cliffe, MichaelKenyon, CliffordShort, Edward
Cullen, Mrs. AliceKey, Rt. Hon. C. W.Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)King, Dr. HoraceSlater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)Lawson, GeorgeSlater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Lee, Frederick (Newton)Small, William
Delargy, HughLee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Dempsey, JamesLewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)Snow, Julian
Dodds, NormanLipton, MarcusSpriggs, Leslie
Driberg, TomMabon, Dr. J. DicksonStewart, Michael (Fulham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.McCann, JohnStones, William
Edelman, MauriceMacColl, JamesStrachey, Rt. Hon. John
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)McInnes, JamesStrauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)Mackie, John (Enfield, East)Swain, Thomas
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)McLeavy, FrankSymonds, J. B.
Evans, AlbertMacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fernyhough, E.Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Fletcher, EricManuel, A. C.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)Mapp, CharlesThompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Forman, J. C.Marsh, RichardThomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Mayhew, ChristopherThornton, Ernest
Ginsburg, DavidMellish, R. J.Timmons, John
Gooch, E. G.Mendelson, J. J.Wade, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Millan, BruceWainwright, Edwin
Gourlay, HarryMilne, EdwardWarbey, William
Grey, CharlesMitchison, G. R.Watkins, Tudor
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)Moody, A. S.Weitzman, David
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Moyle, ArthurWells, Percy (Faversham)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)White, Mrs. Eirene
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Oliver, G. H.Whitlock, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)Oram, A. E.Wilkins, W. A.
Hannan, WilliamOwen, WillWilley, Frederick
Hart, Mrs. JudithPaget, R. T.Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hayman, F. H.Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)Pargiter, G. A.Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Herbison, Miss MargaretParker, JohnWillis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

May I move, "That the debate be now adjourned", in view of the fact that we have had an unprecedented intervention from the Government Front Bench?

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) :

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 232.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)Woof, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Winterbottom, R. E,Yates, Victor (Ladywood)Mr. Dingle Foot and
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.Zilliacus, K.Mr. Stonehouse.

NOES

Agnew, Sir PeterGodber, J. B.Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Aitken, W. T.Goodhew, VictorOrr, Capt. L. P. S.
Allason, JamesGower, RaymondOsborn, John (Hallam)
Arbuthnot, JohnGrant, Rt. Hon. WilliamOsborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Balniel, LordGresham Cooke, R.Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Barber, AnthonyGurden, HaroldPearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Barlow, Sir JohnHamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)Peyton, John
Barter, JohnHarris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Beamish, Col. Sir TuftonHarrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bell, RonaldHarvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)Pitman, Sir James
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)Hastings, StephenPitt, Miss Edith
Berkeley, HumphryHay, JohnPott, Percivall
Bevins, Rt. Hon. ReginaldHeald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelPowell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Biffen, JohnHendry, ForbesPrior, J. M. L.
Biggs-Davison, JohnHicks Beach, Maj. W.Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Bishop, F. P.Hiley, JosephPym, Francis
Black, Sir CyrilHill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bossom, CliveHill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)Ramsden, James
Bourne-Arton, A.Hirst, GeoffreyRedmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Box, DonaldHobson, Sir JohnRees, Hugh
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.Hocking, Philip N.Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Braine, BernardHolland, PhilipRidsdale, Julian
Brewis, JohnHollingworth, JohnRopner, Col. Sir Leonard
Brooman-White, R.Hornby, R. P.Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)Howard, John (Southampton, Test)Russell, Ronald
Browne, Percy (Torrington)Hughes-Young, MichaelScott-Hopkins, James
Bryan, PaulHulbert, Sir NormanSharples, Richard
Buck, AntonyHutchison, Michael ClarkShaw, M.
Bullard, DenysIrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Skeet, T. H. H.
Bullus, Wing Commander EricJackson, JohnSmith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Burden, F. A.Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Smithers, Peter
Butcher, Sir HerbertJennings, J. C.Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)Spearman, Sir Alexander
Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Stodart, J. A.
Cary, Sir RobertKaberry, Sir DonaldStoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Channon, H. P. G.Kimball, MarcusStorey, Sir Samuel
Chichester-Clark, R.Kirk, PeterStudholme, Sir Henry
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir WinstonKitson, TimothySummers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)Lancaster, Col. C. G.Tapsell, Peter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)Langford-Holt, Sir JohnTaylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Cleaver, LeonardLeather, E. H. C.Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Cole, NormanLeavey, J. A.Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Collard, RichardLeburn, GilmourTeeling, Sir William
Cooke, RobertLegge-Bourke, Sir HarryTemple, John M.
Cooper, A. E.Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.Lilley, F. J. P.Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Cordle, JohnLitchfield, Capt. JohnThornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Corfield, F. V.Longden, GilbertTiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Costain, A. P.McAdden, StephenTilney, John (Wavertree)
Coulson, MichaelMcLaren, MartinTouche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Courtney, Cdr. AnthonyMcLaughlin, Mrs. PatriciaTurton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Craddock, Sir BeresfordMaclay, Rt. Hon. JohnTweedsmuir, Lady
Critchley, JuliaMacleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)van Straubenzee, W. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir OliverMacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)Vane, W. M. F.
Cunningham, KnoxMcMaster, Stanley R.Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Curran, CharlesMacpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Vickers, Miss Joan
Dalkeith, Earl ofMaddan, MartinVosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Digby, Simon WingfieldMaginnis, John E.Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.Maitland, Sir JohnWakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Doughty, CharlesManningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.Walder, David
Drayson, G. B.Markham, Major Sir FrankWall, Patrick
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir DavidMarples, Rt. Hon. ErnestWard, Dame Irene
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)Marshall, DouglasWatkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Emery, PeterMarten, NeilWebster, David
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. EvelynMathew, Robert (Honiton)Whitelaw, William
Errington, Sir EricMawby, RayWilliams, Dudley (Exeter)
Farey-Jones, F. W.Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Farr, JohnMaydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fell, AnthonyMills, StrattonWilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Finlay, GraemeMontgomery, FergusWise, A. R.
Fisher, NigelMore, Jasper (Ludlow)Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesMorgan, WilliamWood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)Morrison, JohnWoodnutt, Mark
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.Mott-Radclyffe, Sir CharlesWoollam, John
Gibson-Watt, DavidNabarro, GeraldWorsley, Marcus
Gilmour, Sir JohnNicholls, Sir HarmarYates, William (The Wrekin)
Glover, Sir DouglasNicholson, Sir Godfrey
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Peel and Mr. Batsford.