HC Deb 18 February 1948 vol 447 cc1228-40
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I beg to move, in page 66, line 39, to leave out "nine," and to insert "fourteen."

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles)

Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to discuss his next Amendment at the same time?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Yes, Mr. Bowles, I should be glad to do so if it is convenient to the Committee.

Our view is that this transition on the basis of rating, which is implied by taking the railway and electrical hereditaments out of the valuation list, is at least as profound for the authorities affected as was the effective derating in 1929. A 15-year transitional period was adopted in the 1929 Act. These great changes are removing properties from the purview of the local authorities, very large blocks of property indeed, which have been for many years the subject of large revenues to local authorities. It seems odd that the period for which the transition is allowed should be so much shorter than the period allowed in the Act of 1929, for which I myself had a certain responsibility. The Minister has explained that, first, the position of the Government as a ratepayer will effectively cushion any sudden shocks there may be and, secondly, that the views of the Government with regard to the payments which are to be made to the local authorities will be so generous that none need fear anything. All we can say is that the local authorities do not share those rather roseate views, and I would like to know whether the Minister still stands as stubbornly as he did on the period he has here inserted in the Statute.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is usually fairly exact in his use of the English language and I was rather shocked at hearing a Minister described as stubborn who has already agreed to a 100 per cent. increase in time. The time in the original Bill was five years; I have now agreed to put in 10; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tries to push me to 14. That is quite unreasonable and, when he talks about local authorities, he must speak about the local authorities making the payment as well as the local authorities receiving the payment. I can assure him there is not anything like the same enthusiasm on the part of authorities making the payment as on the part of those receiving it.

The situation is that there are certain county districts in which there are large undertakings such as power stations. Those undertakings will now make their contribution to the local rate in an entirely different and in a much tidier fashion than in the past. A county district was happy enough to have a power station there because its own rateable value was inflated enormously by that fact—purely fortuitous—although in most cases the local authority gave little or no contribution whatever to the power station, but the consumers of electricity in other parts of the country were making their contribution to the revenues of that local authority.

The result was that in many cases, owing to the inflated rateable value, the rate poundage was very low. Naturally, it follows that, when you take this power station out of a local rating roll, that county district will be affected, but it will be benefited in two different ways. It is a most happy coincidence that the county districts so affected all happen to have been in the areas attracting grant under the equalisation of grants scheme. Therefore, where the rateable value is reduced as a consequence of these large undertakings now being taken away from the local valuation list, the average rateable value per head of that area is reduced and a larger proportion of equalisation grant is attracted. Therefore, that county district will receive some benefit by way of the increase in equalisation grant and the reduction of the county precept. Of course, it follows in some cases that the amount of loss far outweighs the benefit—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Hear, hear.

Mr. Bevan

—but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head dolefully about these poor authorities when all that is really happening is that they are now being called upon to bear the same burdens as their brothers. Far from having been cruelly treated, they have been treated lavishly for years at the expense of other authorities, and all that is happening to them now is that they are being invited to accept exactly the same, no more, responsibility than their brothers. However, because it is always unpleasant to have to accept all your responsibilities at once, especially if you have been so nurtured as not to be able to undertake them at once, it is necessary to ease the burden, and so it is being done in the following way.

Where the difference is more than twopence the county can make the contribution to that county district, expiring over a period of 10 years, so that at the end of that 10 years that county district is put in the same position as the other county districts. They will all be county districts which are poorer than the districts to which they are making the contribution, because in the very nature of things the county districts which will have benefited will have had a very much lower rate poundage. The proposition is that for 14 years those poor authorities should continue to make a contribution to authorities better off than themselves. That is a proposition which has only to be stated to be shown to be absolutely untenable. We have made a provision which is generous and which the local authorities concerned have willingly accepted. It would be rather unwise to add to their burdens and increase the period. I think we have met all the claims reasonably made against us.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I am sorry that the Minister is not going to meet us on this point, because a number of districts are going to suffer very severely indeed—

Mr. Bevan

Will the hon. Member explain how they will suffer?

Sir J. Mellor

If the Minister will allow me, I am proceeding to explain, as I have explained, with the assistance of a deputation from a rural district council, to his Parliamentary Secretary, who gave us his very close attention for a considerable time. This is going to hit such districts extremely hard. The Minister has held them out as having lived in luxury for a long time in the enjoyment of rateable value from power stations and similar undertakings. Whether there be any truth in that proposition or not, and I do not think there is, their position is suddenly to be altered. They have entered into capital commitments on the basis of the position as it existed before this Bill was introduced. I think they were entitled to assume that their resources in rateable value would remain constant for the duration of those capital commitments. They are faced with capital commitments, but at the same time their resources are being very seriously depleted. The right hon. Gentleman has contended that they enjoyed a rateable value to which they were not entitled and that these power stations really cost them nothing.

These power stations cost them a great deal in spoliation of their amenities. Large areas have been sterilised as a result of the existence of these undertakings. That sterilisation will remain in perpetuity, so far as I can see. Yet those power stations will be wiped out of the valuation list altogether, and will be in no way reflected in the valuation lists of the future. What are those districts to get by way of compensation? The British Electricity Authority is to pay into a pool, which is to be divided evenly among rating authorities throughout the country. It is going to be divided evenly according to their rateable value. Those which have power stations within their boundaries will get no more out of the pool than those which have not. The grants provided under Clause 100 may be adequate in the first year, but they diminish to zero at the end of 10 years and that will result in a very heavy loss during a period in which the councils, in my submission, will not be in a position to bear it. They will still have the burden of their capital commitments entered into when they had no reason to foresee this radical change in the rating of electricity undertakings.

In future local authorities will be extremely reluctant to have new power stations constructed within their boundaries, because an authority with a power station will get no financial compensation in respect of it, whereas another exactly similar authority nearby without a power station will be in the same financial position, but will not suffer any spoliation of its amenities. I submit that that spoliation is very real. In a county district in my constituency, the Meriden Rural District, there is the Hams Hall power station, belonging to Birmingham Corporation. It is the biggest power station in England and altogether takes up about 1,000 acres. That acreage will remain sterilised and virtually no rateable value will be derived from it.

I think the Minister dismissed our proposition much too lightly. The fact that a five-year period was originally in the Bill means nothing at all, as that was any guess. The fact that he has been willing to extend it to 10 years shows that he realises that there is substance in our argument. I feel we should have some good reason given why this should be to and not 15. I should have argued in favour of 20 years. I say that 10 is not nearly enough. The rural district which I have mentioned, as a result of Part V of this Bill, will lose 34 per cent. of its rateable value. One of the parishes, the parish of Curdworth, will lose 85 per cent. of its rateable value and another parish, Lea Marston, will lose 76 per cent. as a result of the elimination of Hams Hall power station from the valuation list.

I have been a little surprised, especially having regard to the great amount of attention which the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to give to the representations we made to him on behalf of Meriden Rural District Council when he received a deputation, that the Ministry have not made more careful inquiries to find out to what extent and how widely district councils are likely to be affected by Part V of the Bill. On 17th December I asked a Question of the Minister: if he will identify those local authorities in whose areas transport and electricity undertakings contribute more than 20 per cent. of the rateable value. The Minister answered: No. I could not obtain this information without detailed inquiries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 356.] It seems to me singularly strange that, when admittedly a number of authorities are going to be seriously prejudiced by a provision in the Bill, the Ministry should have no information whatever as to how many authorities are going to be affected and to what extent. Twenty per cent. of one's rateable value is a large slice to lose. The local authority with which I am particularly concerned, the Meriden Rural District Council, will, as I pointed out, lose 34 per cent. of its rateable value as a result of Part V of this Bill.

7.0 p.m.

This is a serious matter. Therefore, for the Minister to dismiss this Amendment, saying "I put down five years, I have extended it to 10 years; why on earth do you want to ask for 15 years?" is not a sufficient argument against this Amendment. We should have some figures, we should have a careful examination of how this will affect a number of local authorities in this country. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies we shall get a detailed reply, because I know that he is fully seized of the importance of this matter, and that we shall get a more conciliatory answer than the Minister gave when he spoke.

It is a most invidious step to wipe out of the valuation list a great structure which represents a large part of the rateable value, and to put nothing permanent in its place, except a share of the pool which is to be distributed, not in accordance with the original rateable value but in accordance with the residual rateable value. That will leave these authorities in a bad position. Not only do they lose that rateable value but their share of the pool is diminished by virtue of the loss of that rateable value, so they are to be left in a very weak position indeed. I hope that we shall have from the Parliamentary Secretary a carefully reasoned answer to the proposition which we have put forward. I submit that at least the grants from the county councils should be extended over a period of 15 years.

Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I wish to support the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). The City of Birmingham has been mentioned, but though I represent one of its Divisions this matter has nothing whatever to do with the city, and I speak because I happen to live in the constituency to which my hon. Friend has referred. I can hardly go out for a walk in the district without seeing that power station, so it is present in my mind all the time. I know from conversations in the district how seriously this matter is considered there. I listened to the Minister's reply. It was rather cavalier of him to say, "They have had the benefit all these years, and they should be satisfied with that." That is all very well, but when a local authority has had a certain income which it has regarded as a permanency, and has made its arrangements on that basis, it is not easy to be told, "Forget that. You have to find some other way of making up your income." In these days a rural district situated as Meriden is finds it almost impossible to attract anything else of a similar nature. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows the story and has seen a deputation and let them go away thinking, as usual, that careful consideration would be given to what they had said, will be able to say something which will reassure such authorities.

Colonel Wheatley

I, too, would like to support my hon. Friend. It is all very well for the Minister to say that those authorities which have these power stations in their area have done very well for many years. They have also had great expenditure on account of those power stations. Very often their presence has meant the provision and the keeping up of new roads, the spending of more money on education because the children of the workers at those power stations have to be educated, and a greater expense in the way of health services. The Minister cannot have looked at this matter clearly if he assumes that the presence of a power station in a locality is all gain and no loss.

It is a point which is keenly felt. It has been suggested that these authorities should still have these power stations included in their rateable value, that that rateable value should be deducted from the global sum and that they should be allowed to keep the rates which they have been receiving for so many years in respect of these power stations. In that way their share of the global sum would be lessened and their neighbours who now, according to the Minister, are paying for what these authorities have been having all these years, would have their position evened up by those authorities not receiving so much of the global sum. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter again. It is felt keenly not only by the actual villages or towns where these power stations are: the county councils also support these areas in their protest against this method of dealing with the rates of these power stations. The Minister should take into consideration the fact that it is not only the areas themselves, but the county councils which are also affected in this way.

Mr. J. Edwards

I am sorry that it is quite impossible for us to accept this Amendment. Perhaps I may be permitted to give a few additional reasons why we cannot do so. First, we have reached the conclusion that as a matter of principle from which we cannot depart the moneys that are paid into the pool covering the amount formerly paid in rates shall be distributed over the country in accordance with rateable value. We have, therefore, been left with the problem of deciding how long local authorities which are adversely affected by this provision in isolation ought to be given to turn round. We began by saying that the period should be five years. I have now received some six or seven deputations from local authorities which are affected by this proposal. Some of them came almost as soon as the Bill had been produced and was publicly known. It was as a result of our careful reconsideration of the matter that we came to the conclusion that it would be fair to double the time we gave to the authorities to turn round.

Later it seemed to us that there might still be an odd case for which we could not legislate and we put down in Committee a new Clause, which is now Clause 121, under which it would be quite possible for the county council to come to the aid of any authority which really had not been able to adjust itself to its new circumstances over the 10 years for which the grant will run. It would be permissible, under that new Clause, for the county council to come to the aid of a district council. All the cases I have seen, and such knowledge as I have of the circumstances, lead me to conclude that the district councils that are affected insist that they must take this part of the Bill in isolation from the rest. There are other parts of the Bill of which local authorities can say, "Taking this alone we are worse off," but we have to consider the overall effects of the Bill on local authorities.

I received a deputation this morning from an authority which was losing one-third of its rateable value. They insisted on telling me of their sufferings and their losses. They said they would lose something of the order of a 3s. 10d. rate. It was clear, from the estimates that we had of the overall position, that even when the 10-year grants had come to an end, that particular authority, all other things being equal, would be better off to the extent of something like an 8s. rate. I do not believe that we can find cases of hardship in any absolute sense. I think that such hardship as is said to exist is comparative hardship, in the sense that people say: "We are not getting as much out of this as other people are, and if we could retain this rateable value we should be better off." I would ask hon. Members to consider this from the point of view of the impact of the whole Bill. They should consider, also, that we have doubled the period which we are giving for local authorities to turn round, and, in addition, the effect of Clause 121, which will enable county councils to help in any genuine difficulty that may arise.

Sir J. Mellor

The Parliamentary Secretary states that a deputation came to him and said that they would lose 30 per cent. of their rateable value, and he says in fact that they would appear to be better off. The point, surely, is that they were worse off as compared with another authority—

Mr. Edwards

Not so well off as the other authority.

Sir J. Mellor

—which did not happen to have an electricity undertaking or a railway within its boundaries. I assume that what he means it that, as a result of the general transfer of liability from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, in the net and ultimate result their poundage rate may not be increased. Surely he would agree that, compared with a neighbouring authority which had not a power station, it would be true to say that they were substantially worse off.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

We have had an interesting discussion, but I fear we shall not be able to reach agreement on this point. Some of the points are, in fact, inherent in the solution which the Minister has chosen in the Bill. The question of pooled resources and pooled payment is an example. We shall never get fully away from that. The real difficulty is that both the Minister and the junior Minister have explained too much. The Minister has explained so convincingly why it ought not to be a 15-year period that we begin to wonder why he made it 10 years, instead of five. He explained so convincingly why it would be to the

advantage of everybody for electricity to be given a full payment, in lieu, that we wonder why, in the Gas Bill, he has so carefully provided that payment should not be made in this way at all, but that the rate should fall on the gas undertakings just as before. On this point we are, I am afraid, at the parting of the ways. We on this side of the Committee cannot feel ourselves convinced by the arguments which the Minister has adduced.

Question put, "That the word 'nine' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 114.

Division No. 82.] AYES. [7.15 p.m.
Acland, Sir R Davies, Harold (Leek) House, G
Adams, Richard (Balham) Davies, Haydn (St. Mantras, S.W.) Hoy, J.
Alexander, Rt Hon A. V Davies, S O. (Merthyr) Hudson, J H (Ealing, W)
Alpass, J H Deer, G. Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Anderson, F (Whitehaven) de Freitas, Geoffrey Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Attewell, H. C Delargy, H. J Hughes, H D (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B Dobbie, W. Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)
Bacon, Miss A Dodds, N. N. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Baird, J. Donovan, T Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)
Balfour, A. Driberg, T E. N. Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A
Barnes, Rt. Hon A J Dumpleton, C W Jay. D. P. T
Barstow, P G. Durbin, E F M Jeger, G (Winchester)
Barton, C Ede, Rt Hon J. C. Jeger, Dr S. W (St Pancras, S.E.)
Battley, J. R. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Jones, D T (Hartlepools)
Bechervaise, A. E Edwards, John (Blackburn) Jones, J. H (Bolton)
Benson, G Edwards, N (Caerphilly) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Beswick, F Evans, A (Islington, W.) Keenan, W.
Bevan, Rt Hon. A (Ebbw Vale) Evans, E (Lowestoft) Kenyon, C
Bing G. H C Evans, John (Ogmore) King, E M
Binns, J Evans, S N. (Wednesbury) Kinley, J
Blenkinsop, A. Ewart, R. Lang, G
Blyton, W. R. Fairhurst, F. Lawson, Rt Hon J. J
Beardman, H Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.) Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Foot, M M. Leonard, W.
Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Forman, J. C Leslie, J R.
Braddock, T (Mitcham) Fraser, T (Hamilton) Levy, B W
Brook, D (Halifax) Freeman, Peter (Newport) Lewis, A. W J (Upton)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Lewis, T (Southampton)
Brown, George (Belper) George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Lindgren, G. S
Brown, T J. (Ince) Gibbins, J Lipson, D. L.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Gibson, C W Longden, F.
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Lyne, A. W.
Burke. W. A. Gooch, E. G. McAdam, W.
Byers, Frank Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) McEntee, V La T
Carmichael, James Grenfell, D R. McGhee H G.
Chamberlain, R A. Grey, C F. McGovern, J
Champion A J Grierson, E. Mack, J. D
Chetwynd, G R. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) McKay, J (Wallsend)
Cluse, W S Griffiths, Rt. Hon J (Llanelly) Mackay, R. W G. (Hull, N.W.)
Cocks, F S Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) McKinlay, A S
Coldrick, W Guest, Dr L. Haden Maclean, N (Govan)
Collick, P Guy, W H McLeavy, F.
Collindridge, F Haire, John E (Wycombe) MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)
Collins, V. J. Hale, Leslie Mainwaring, W H
Colman, Miss G. M Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil Mann, Mrs. J
Comyns, Dr L Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Cook, T. F Hardman, D. R. Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Hardy, E A. Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Corbet, Mrs F K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Harrison, J. Mellish, R. J.
Corlett, Dr J Hastings, Dr Somerville Messer, F.
Cove, W G Henderson, Rt Hn A (Kingswinford) Middleton, Mrs. L.
Crossman, R. H S. Herbison, Miss M Mikardo, Ian
Daggar, G. Hewitson, Capt M Mitchison, G. R
Davies, Clement Rt. Hon (Montgomery) Hicks, G Monslow, W.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Holman, P. Moody, A. S
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Morley, R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Titterington, M F.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Robertson, J. J (Berwick) Tolley, L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Rogers, G. H. R. Turner-Samuels, M.
Mort, D. L. Scollan, T. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Murray, J D. Scott-Elliot, W. Vernon, Maj. W F
Nally, W. Segal, Dr. S Viant, S. P.
Naylor, T. E. Sharp, Granville Wadsworth, G
Neal H. (Claycross) Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Walkden, E.
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford) Shinwell, Rt Hon. E. Walker, G. H
Oldfield, W H Shurmer, P. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Oliver, G H. Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Warbey, W. N.
Orbach, M. Silverman, J (Erdington) Watkins, T. E
Paget, R. T. Simmons, C. J. Watson, W. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth) Skeffington, A. M. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Skinnard, F. W West, D. G.
Palmer, A. M F Smith, C. (Colchester) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Pargiter, G. A. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh, E.)
Paten, Mrs F (Rushcliffe) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Pearson, A Snow, J. W. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Perrins, W. Solley, L. J. Wigg, George
Papplewell, E. Sorensen, R. W. Willey, F T. (Sunderland)
Porter, E. (Warrington) Sparks, J A. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Porter, G. (Leeds) Stamford, W Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Price, M. Philips Steele, T Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Proctor, W T Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Pryde, D. J. Stross, Dr. B Williamson, T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H Sylvester, G O Willis, E.
Randall, H. E Symonds, A. L Wills, Mrs. E. A
Ranger, J Taylor, H B (Mansfield) Woodburn, A
Rankin, J Taylor, R. J (Morpeth) Wyatt, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R Thomas, D E (Aberdare) Yates, V F.
Reeves, J. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Zilliacus, K.
Reid, T. (Swindon) Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)
Richards, R. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Thurtle, Ernest Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Tiffany, S. Mr. Wilkins.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Timmons, J.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P G. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Amory, D Heathcoat Henderson, John (Cathcart) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Hollis, M. C. Peaks, Rt Hon. O
Barlow, Sir J Hope, Lord J Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Beechman, N. A. Hurd, A. Pools, O B. S. (Oswestry)
Bennett, Sir P. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Prior-Palmer, Brig, O
Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells) Jeffreys, General Sir G. Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)
Boothby, R Keeling, E. H. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bowen, R. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Lambert, Hon G Robinson, Roland
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W Langford-Holt. J. Ropner, Col. L
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Sanderson, Sir F
Bullock, Capt. M. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Savory, Prof. D. L
Challen, C. Low, A. R W Scott, Lord W.
Channon, H. Lucas, Major Sir J Shephard, S. (Newark)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)
Clarke, Col. R. S Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Conant, Maj. R J. E. McCallum, Maj. D. Snadden, W. M
Crawder, Capt. John E. MacDonald, Sir M (Inverness) Spearman, A. C. M
Darling, Sir W. Y. McFarlane, C. S. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Davidson, Viscountess Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
De la Bère, R. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Studholme, H G
Digby, S W. McKie, J. H (Galloway) Sutcliffe, H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Maclay, Hon. J S. Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)
Donner, P. W. Maclean, F H R Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Dower, Lt.-Col. A V. G. (Penrith) Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley) Touche, G. C.
Drayson, G B. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Turton, R. H.
Drewe, C. Manningham-Buller, R. E Vane, W. M. F.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Marples, A. E. Walker-Smith, D
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Wheatley, Col M J. (Dorset, E.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Medlicott, F. White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Gage, C. Mellor, Sir J Williams, C (Torquay)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Molson, A. H. E Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
George, Maj Rt. Hn G. Lloyd (P'ke) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Winterton, Rt Hon Earl
Gomme-Duncan, Col A Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Grimston, R. V Noble, Comdr A. H. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Odey, G. W. Major Ramsay and
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.