HC Deb 15 October 1952 vol 505 cc325-41
Mr. T. Fraser

I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out from "may," to "submit," in line 24.

Hon. Members will see at a glance that we seek to delete from Clause 3 (1) the words which give the Secretary of State the power to instruct a local authority to make a scheme under which it may be required to grant assistance for the provision of houses for agricultural workers by private persons.

I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State would want to issue an instruction, say, to the Lanark County Council. Let us assume that the Lanark County Council is making good progress with the provision of the houses which are provided for in Clause 2, and is meeting the requirements of the agricultural population as it is those of workers in other industries. The Lanark County Council might well take the view that it should not spend any of the ratepayers' money on subsidies for farmers and landowners to build houses for the agricultural population.

The Lanark County Council might well say "We will provide houses and reserve them for the use of the agricultural population, but they will not be tied houses because those who have the good fortune to occupy the houses will not be tied to specific farms." The Lanark County Council has a perfect right to take that view, and I believe it is exceedingly likely that it will take that view.

I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State would really want to be in the position of sending an instruction to the Lanark County Council saying "Whether you like it or lump it, you must prepare a scheme under which you, as a local authority with a very heavy rate burden to carry at present, and irrespective of the number of houses you are building for the agricultural population, will find money to subsidise the farmers and landowners of Lanarkshire in the provision of tied houses." I should not think that the Secretary of State would be very anxious to arm himself with the power to issue such an instruction to local authorities.

Mr. Hubbard

Set the people free!

Mr. T. Fraser

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) says, "Set the people free." That was a famous phrase used by the present Prime Minister; and Members on the other side of the Committee have often talked in recent weeks and months about the desirability of giving more power rather than more duties to the local authorities of Scotland.

I say to the Secretary of State that it will be a very easy matter for him to give to the local authorities more powers, or at least to desist from taking away powers from them, if he will merely get up and say that he will be glad to accept this Amendment, because as he and every member of the Committee knows, if this subsection remains unamended he will be taking away from the local authority a power which it has at present and he will be imposing a duty upon the local authority which is not imposed at present. Under this Clause the powers of local authorities are reduced and their duties are increased.

I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult to match his words and those of his political party colleagues with their actions in the framing of this Clause of the Bill. I urge him to follow the advice given by his Leader some time ago and make a little contribution towards setting the people free. At least put some trust in the democratically elected local authorities.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman's party is not a democratic party and that it has no great love for democratic institutions. His party believes in the fuehrer-leader principle, but much lip service has been paid to the democratic content of our local authorities in Scotland. I remember the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) standing at the Box on this side of the House, thumping the Box and saying: "The important thing about local government is, first, that it should be local, and, second, that it should he government."

I invite the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and say just a word in support of this Amendment. Let him speak now as he did when he was on this side of the House. Let him say, "I support the Members on the other side of the Committee who are anxious to make local government both local and government."

Let him support us on this occasion and say to his right hon. Friend, "For goodness sake allow the local authorities to run their own affairs and do not put this further burden upon them. Do not take this action you are proposing to take by which you will instruct the local authorities to make a scheme and impose financial obligations upon the local authorities which they are most unwilling to bear."

It seems to me that the Secretary of State has committed a great error in putting these new words into this subsection of the Bill. I have only spoken at the length I have done because the Secretary of State has failed to give me any indication that he is willing to accept the Amendment. I hope that I have misunderstood him, that I have misconstrued his silence and lack of expression.

I hope that he will now get up and say that he is sorry, that he is wrong, that he has no desire to rob the local authorities of the powers they possess, that he has no desire to impose fresh duties on the local authorities, that he will trust these democratically elected local authorities in Scotland to make a scheme if it seems to them in their wisdom desirable that they should do so and that he will not insist upon issuing instructions to them. I hope that he will accept this Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross

So far in our discussion we have seen what almost amounts to a conspiracy of silence among hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. I am hopeful that there will be some rebel who is prepared to break it.

I do not want to talk about the merits of the Clause itself but I think that every hon. Member on the other side of the Committee remembers past debates which we have had on this same subject, and they will agree that it is one of the most controversial matters in regard to housing in Scotland; the question of the tied house. Yet here we are, with the Secretary of State for Scotland projecting himself and his own wishes and taking powers which will enable him to override the wishes of local authorities in this matter. It is on that one aspect, to which our Amendment relates, that I wish to say a word.

We have heard, on this question of the powers of the local authorities, speech after speech from the men who tonight are so silent. We are getting quite used to the contrast between what happens after an election and what was said before an election by the party opposite. We remember those rolling phrases and high sounding sentiments. Confidence and a greater measure of responsibility will be restored to the county burghs and district councils. The Prime Minister said that in Scotland on 17th October, a week before the Election.

Here we are considering a housing Measure, something that has to be delegated to the local authorities, and is the responsibility of the local authorities to be trusted? In fact, are the wishes of the local authorities to be considered?

In that same speech the Prime Minister said: There are too many controls and restraints holding back British genius, too many jobs which local authorities and voluntary bodies used to do that the State now insists on doing. And here is the Secretary of State for Scotland insisting on doing a job that surely is the responsibility of the elected representatives of the counties or the burghs.

What is the justification for this? Surely the local authorities of Scotland, whom we are led to believe properly represent the people of Scotland, can be trusted to decide whether or not this Clause should be put into force?

It is surprising that the Secretary of State did not take the same power in Clause 2, which we have just been discussing, to force local authorities to build agricultural houses. But he insists that he will force local authorities to give us schemes in order to build tied houses at public expense. I think we should get an explanation of why the Secretary of State insists on this phrase in this Clause; why he does not trust the local authorities and why he does not measure up to the high-sounding phrases and all the hypocritical words which he and his colleagues uttered over the past five years. He is condemning himself, and by their silence right hon. and hon. Members opposite are condemning themselves, as hypocrites.

Mr. Pryde

On one occasion already I have described the Bill as rotten to the core. This Clause makes it absolutely stink. It gives power to the friends of the Conservative Party to revert again to the feudal system. Prior to the Election I said that if a Conservative Government were returned to power they would endeavour to turn the wheel of evolution backwards. That is exactly what is happening in this Clause.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party is not pleased today with the position in regard to the provision of houses for agricultural workers. Previously, my party, as the Government of the day, flung open a door that had never been opened before, and we heard tonight an intimation that over 2,000 houses have already been built in Scotland.

I think everyone will agree that the houses built by the local authorities are very fine houses indeed. They are placed on sites where labour is conveniently available to the intensively cultivated portions of our constituencies. The Scottish Special Housing Association, of which I cannot speak too highly, is available to make provision in these rural areas for accommodation for the rural population.

This Clause will again place the iron heel upon our rural population, and I shall not sit quietly by and allow any of our agricultural workers to experience again what I have already seen inflicted upon them since 1945 in my own constituency. I have seen men turned out without any notice whatever, even in inclement weather, in which a woman and her child had to walk seven or eight miles in order to get shelter. I think it is morally wrong for any political party to arm any Government with the power that will inflict such hardship upon our rural population.

I am sure that the Government know perfectly well that the trade union which caters for the agricultural workers in Scotland has consistently and conscientiously fought against this position, and I am certain that not one agricultural vote will ever be cast for a Conservative candidate if we allow this Clause to go through.

Mr. J. Stuart

I should like to assure the Committee that there is no very sinister motive in the words which the Amendment seeks to delete. They were taken in their exact form from the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938. Further, I do not want it to be thought that I am wishing to harass responsible local authorities. This provision has not been included with any desire to irritate them or make their life more burdensome, but because I thought that it was a wise provision which should be retained.

I must point out that the Government's aim and desire is to see a good supply of houses in agricultural areas. That is what we want to ensure, and, while the local authorities have their responsibilities, it is nevertheless the case that the Government have a considerable interest, to put it as mildly as possible, in this matter, because the Exchequer provides three-quarters of the local authorities' expenditure, and, in the Highlands and Islands, seven-eighths of that expenditure. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the central Government are not interested in the work of the local authorities in the provision of privately built houses for agricultural workers.

I hope that hon. Members will not think it necessary to press this matter, because I think that this is a provision which might be of use. I am not expecting to have to use it, and I am not including it in the Bill for any sinister reason. It is merely that, desiring as we do to see houses built in agricultural districts, and in order to encourage them in every way where a local authority is slow or does not produce a scheme within a reasonable time, I felt that it would be a reasonable and wise precaution that the Government should have the power to ask them to do so.

That is the object of the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out. As I say, they have the merit of being the exact words which were included in the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938. I was not expecting it to be an Amendment which would take up a great deal of the time of the Committee, and I have also said that I hope it will not be necessary to use the power. But I am of the opinion that it might be a wise precaution to retain it, and. therefore. I hope the Committee will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. John Wheatley (Edinburgh, East)

I am afraid that we have had nothing like a satisfactory answer from the Secretary or State for Scotlanad. Indeed, I think he has confused the arguments which have been presented to the Committee. He advanced, I think, two reasons to justify the introduction of this expression into this Clause. The first was to pray in aid the introduction of a similar expression in the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938. But that was dealing with an entirely different matter. It was dealing with a power given to the Secretary of State to demand that a local authority which had not supplied a scheme under the Act should present him with a scheme.

The Act dealt with schemes for the replacement of unsatisfactory houses. It is one thing to say to a local authority, "If you have a duty to supply a scheme for replacing unsatisfactory houses, and if you are not fulfilling that duty, then, as Secretary of State, I insist that you present a scheme in the interest of public health and all the other considerations that have to be taken into account when a local authority is not discharging its duty in these respects."

But we are not dealing with that type of case here; we are dealing with the type of case where under the Bill the local authority is given the power to present a scheme for the building by private individuals of houses for the agricultural population which will be subsidised by the Government to the extent of the figures mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

But, in so far as these houses may often be what are commonly known as tied houses, we are dealing with an entirely different situation, because a local authority could very well be fulfilling all its duties towards the people in its area by refusing to operate a scheme of this nature, and by saying, "If these members of the agricultural population have to be rehoused, we insist in doing it through the normal local authority channels, by building local authority houses. We do not agree with the principle of giving public money to private individuals to enable them to build houses which will come out of the normal housing pool and turn them into tied cottages." Therefore, there is no equation between the conditions under which this phrase was introduced in the 1938 Act and the circumstances of the present Act.

What was the other reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman for including this phrase? He said it might be of use. How might it be of use? He said it might be of use where the local authority was slow or did not produce a scheme, and that in those circumstances it was right that the Government should have the power. But he did not go on to consider whether or not it was right on the merits that the Government should superimpose their will on the local authority in these particular circumstances.

I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to get to his feet again and explain to the Committee why he thinks that if a local authority exercising the discretion, cretion, were to take the view that a scheme of this nature was undesirable because it preferred to rehouse the agricultural population under the local authority housing scheme and not by the giving of public money to private individuals to build tied houses, he should superimpose his will on the will of the local authority, exercising the discretion, and not, as in the case of the 1938 Act, refusing to exercise the discretion against the public interest? Really, we must get some more satisfactory and some more convincing answer from the other side of the Committee.

10.30 p.m.

Let me add my weight to the pleas of my hon. Friends to get some sort of support from the other side on this matter. I really do invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to break through the sound barrier. They have erected a sound barrier in respect of matters on which, in previous Parliaments, they were not only loquacious but, on occasion, verbose. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) referred to a speech by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) when he referred to the undesirability of superimposing the will of the central Government on the local government to make it both local and government, and he made a very impassioned speech about that. He had the full support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side.

I would agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it may be necessary for the central Government to have this over-riding authority, should it be that the health, the sanitation, the interests of the community were at stake; but when we are dealing merely with a question as to the manner in which this particular subsidy should be granted, whether it should be granted or not in a particular area, then, manifestly, it is a matter for the people with local knowledge.

I invite the Secretary of State or one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State—or the Lord Advocate, whom I see here—to justify this. If there is this elected silence on the Front Bench, then I turn to the third bench below the Gangway and invite the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove to join in, or the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) sitting next to him, looking very pensive, and, I am sure, appreciating the force of the argument; or the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) who has come to the Committee armed with authorities. I am sure he is wishing to quote them and prove conclusively not only what we said on previous occasions but what his right hon. Friends said on previous occasions.

Then there is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who is so very anxious to see that the rights of local authorities are preserved—even to the extent of disagreeing with them at times. I was sorry to see depart from the Committee the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) because I am sure that if he had been still here he would have wished to have summarised the whole of the arguments advanced to the Committee in the debate, and that might have given some thinking time to his right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench, to enable them to decide what they were going to do.

This is a very serious matter. It involves a matter of principle and the right hon. Gentleman ought to look at it again. I could put the matter no more succinctly, I think, than my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, when he said that the right hon. Gentleman does not concede it is necessary to step in to oblige local authorities to provide agricultural houses for the agricultural population if they are falling down on their job; but he is prepared to step in and force them to provide houses under such schemes despite the wishes of the local authorities in the matter. I think that that shows quite clearly one of the strong differences and cleavages of opinion between the two parties in this Committee.

If, as I am sure he has, the right hon. Gentleman has a sense of the high responsibility of his office, he will give further consideration to this, and if he is not prepared to give us an answer tonight, perhaps he will give us an undertaking that he will look at it and put down an appropriate Amendment at the next stage. Then we shall be content. If not, we must consider what action we shall take in the matter.

Mr. T. Fraser

The reply of the Secretary of State was about the most inadequate reply I have ever heard a Government spokesman make during the whole time I have been in Parliament. He said that this power in this subsection, which we wish to take away from him but which he wishes to have, is justified, and appears to him to be fully justified, because it was picked clean out of the 1938 Act.

What a justification. Did we on this side support this provision in the 1938 Act? Did the people of Scotland like it? They did not. It is precisely because the people of Scotland were tired of the legislation passed by a Tory Government that the majority of them voted for the Labour Party in 1945; and it is precisely for that reason that the Tory Party has not got a majority in Scotland even at the present time.

The Tories were told in 1937 by the Advisory Committee on Housing that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, should run out in two years' time—namely, in 1939—because almost all the houses capable of being improved had been dealt with and the Act should be terminated. But the Tory Government of that day thought it would be a good thing if they introduced a new Bill to provide public moneys to help build new houses to replace those that were not worth improving.

Lest some progressive authority, like the Lanarkshire County Council, should say, "We are not going to give the ratepayers' money for the replacement of those old, dilapidated farm-workers' houses," the Secretary of State at that time put in this little provision, that if a local authority did not make a scheme he would have the power to instruct them to make a scheme.

Now the Secretary of State says, "Since we got away with it in 1938, surely you are not going to object to us doing it in 1952"—and doing it this time, incidentally, not merely for the replacement of unsatisfactory houses but for the building of tied houses ad lib. If that is the best answer he has to give us this evening, we are not willing to accept it.

When he was speaking I had the feeling that perhaps there were so many Ministers in the Scottish Office nowadays that the brief on this Amendment had been picked up by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, and taken away to another place, because it was very difficult to believe he was giving the best answer to this Amendment. I do ask him to consider this again. What right has he to tell the local authorities of Scotland, "You must make a scheme to help finance the building of tied houses" when he does not take the power to say to the local authorities of Scotland, "You will provide houses for members of the agricultural population"? He is protecting himself against progressive authorities in Scotland by putting this power into one Clause and saving himself from the reactionary local authorities by not putting the power into another Clause.

We do not accept his reply, and I invite him to say, either that he will have further thought about this before the Report stage, or to go a little further and say he has been convinced, as any sensible person would be, by the arguments advanced in support of this Amendment, and that in the circumstances he will accept it.

Mr. M. MacMillan

I should like to ask the Secretary of State, or whoever is to reply, under just what circumstances would he use the powers proposed to be taken in this Clause, because the more he uses those powers, the more will he make inroads on the materials, the scarce labour, and the general capacity of the county councils—especially those in difficult Highland areas. There, as I know so well, it is difficult for them to build the ordinary quota of houses, apart from tied cottages.

I cannot follow the rhetoric of the hon. Member who quoted the Act of 1938. Why take private building under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, and compare that with private building under this Bill? The hon. Member said the Government was on the side of the rural population, but I think it is heedless of the agricultural population. The hon. Member was talking in terms of houses built with real private enterprise by crofters built with their own hands and skill, and it says much for them when it is remembered what the output was without full training in house-building, and with only the grants available. But grants have been available on a much more generous scale over the last two years from State funds.

These houses were built under mortgage to the Department of Agriculture, the money being repaid over a considerable period of years. They were considered ancillary to the croft on which they were built, and that is a very different matter from assistance being offered to the owners of tied houses which will remain private property, and whose value will be decided and enhanced with the assistance of State funds.

The 1938 Act, broadly, was to enable crofters to enjoy grants and loans repayable by them for houses built, in the main, by their own enterprise. It is different for private persons to take advantage of an offer of State money to build houses as tied cottages.

Would the Minister like to tell us just a little more? All of us on this side think that it is most unwise to encroach upon the liberty of the local authorities of Scotland and not to let them take their decisions freely, as democratically elected bodies. They should decide how much of their resources in labour and materials is to be devoted to the building of essential houses for renting, and how much is to go to the building of tied cottages. I assure the Minister that it is a most important matter in Highland areas, where it is almost impossible for one to lay hands on resources for building the absolute minimum of houses to rent.

I was told, in answer to a Question some time ago, by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollak (Commander Galbraith) that the Inverness County Council does not intend to build a single house in the course of the present year in the Western Isles; yet some hundreds were built in the course of the last few years through the enterprise and energy of the two previous Secretaries of State for Scotland. This year, he tells me, none at all.

Throughout the Western Isles the Inverness-shire County Council cannot get contractors to go there and build at less than £2,600 per house. One can have all the modern techniques in the world but if one cannot get contractors one will certainly not get the houses. If, in addition, the enforcement of this provision is applied, the preparing of schemes—and by implication the provision of labour—for tied cottages, it will reduce even further their capacity to provide houses for the purpose of letting to an absolute minimum. Is that to be applied, or is it not, and in what circumstances is it to be applied, having regard to the most difficult counties?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

Does the Secretary of State intend to say something further on this?

Mr. J. Stuart

All I wish to explain to the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) is that the sole object of the Government is to see that housing is carried out and that we get on with the job. The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to progressive authorities, but the sole object of the words which the Opposition seek to leave out is to ensure that any authorities who will not progress will take some interest and submit a scheme because it is Government policy to aim at the increased building of houses.

As I have said, I hope not to have to use it, but the Government have a grave responsibility and are also paying three quarters of the cost and seven-eighths in some areas. They have a responsibility to see that housing is provided, and the best housing we can afford. That is the sole object. I said there is nothing sinister about it. I do not want to have to use it; it is the last thing I want to have to do.

In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, East, I had no intention of trying to mislead in reference to the 1938 Act. What I meant to say was that the words proposed to be omitted are reproduced verbatim from the corresponding provision of the 1938 Act. I was not suggesting that the 1938 Act did exactly the same as this Measure, but that there was the precedent for the wording. That was why the words appeared in that form; they had been taken from another Act.

Mr. Woodburn

This seems to be an entirely new principle. For the first time, not only is a local authority to be able to be told to carry out a housing programme under its own auspices but now it is to be actually compelled to provide houses which are to become the property of other people altogether. That is a principle to which we cannot agree and I ask hon. Members—I am sure they will do so with great pleasure—to register their opposition to it in the Lobby.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 129.

Division No. 235.] AYES [10.50 p.m.
Alport, C. J. M. Heath, Edward Oakshott, H. D.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Higgs, J. M. C. Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Arbuthnot, John Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Osborne, C.
Baldoek, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E. Hirst, Geoffrey Peyton, J. W. W.
Banks, Col. C. Holland-Martin, C. J. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Barlow, Sir John Hope, Lord John Rakes, H. V.
Baxter, A. B. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Redmayne, M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Horobin, I. M. Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Robertson, Sir David
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Howard, Greville (St. Ives) Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Bennett, William (Woodside) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Bishop, F. P. Hurd, A. R. Roper, Sir Harold
Boothby, R. J. G. Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hutchison, Lt. Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Scott, R. Donald
Boyle, Sir Edward Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. Shepherd, William
Brooman-White, R. C. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Browne, Jack (Govan) Kaberry, D. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Snadden, W. McN
Bullard, D. G. Lambert, Hon. G. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Butcher, H. W. Langford-Holt, J. A. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Stevens, G. P.
Channon, H. Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Linstead, H. N. Storey, S.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L. Low, A. R. W. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Studholme, H. G.
Deedes, W. F. McCallum, Major D. Summers, G. S.
Digby, S. Wingfield McKibbin, A. J. Sutcliffe, H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Donner, P. W. Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Tilney, John
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Turner, H. F. L.
Duthie, W. S. Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries) Turton, R. H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fell, A. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Finlay, Graeme Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Markham, Major S. F. Ward, Hon George (Worcester)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C.
Galbrailh, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maudling, R. Watkinson, H. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H. Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S. L. C. Wellwood, W.
Godber, J. B. Medlicott, Brig. F. White, Baker (Canterbury)
Gough, C. F. H. Mellor, Sir John Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Gower, H. R. Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus Morrison, John (Salisbury) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Grimond, J. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Wills, G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hare, Hon. J. H. Nugent, G. R. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Nutting, Anthony Mr. Drewe and Mr. Vosper.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Donnelly, D. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Awbery, S. S. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Balfour, A. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Janner, B.
Bartley, P. Fernyhough, E. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Bence, C. R. Finch, H. J. Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Benson, G. Foot, M. M. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Bing, G. H. C. Forman, J. C. Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Blackburn, F. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Boardman, H. Freeman, John (Watford) Keenan, W.
Bowden, H. W. Gibson, C. W. Kenyon, C.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Gooch, E. G. King, Dr. H. M.
Burke, W. A. Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Callaghan, L. J. Grey, C. F. Logan, D. G.
Carmichael, J. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) MacColl, J. E.
Champion, A. J. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) McInnes, J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hall, John (Gateshead, W.) McKay, John (Wallsend)
Clunie, J. Hamilton, W. W. McLeavy, F.
Collick, P. H. Hargreaves, A. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Cullen, M. & A. Hayman, F. H. Mann, Mrs. Jean
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Hobson, C. R. Manuel, A. C.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Houghton, Douglas Mellish, R. J.
Deer, G. Hubbard, T. F. Mikardo, Ian
Delargy, H. J. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Mitchison, G. R.
Monslow, W. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Moody, A. S. Reid, William (Camlachie) Timmons, J.
Morley, R. Rhodes, H. Wallace, H. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Watkins, T. E.
Mort, D. L. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Mulley, F. W. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Nally, W. Ross, William Wells, William (Walsall)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Royle, C. West, D. G.
Orbach, M. Shackleton, E. A. A. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Oswald, T. Short, E. W. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Padley, W. E. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Wilkins, W. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley) Slater, J. Williams, David (Neath)
Parker, J. Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Pearson, A. Steele, T. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Poole, C. C. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Popplewell, E. Taylor, John (West Lothian) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Porter, G. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) Yates, V. F.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Proctor, W. T. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pryde, D. J. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) Mr. Hannan and
Mr. Horace Holmes.

To report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.