§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)
I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, at the end to insert:(a) the landlord giving the notice to quit is not a landlord who acquired his interest in the estate as the heir-at-law or the legatee of a former landlord and.Subsection (3) provides that the security of tenure that has hitherto been enjoyed by a tenant who has succeeded to the tenancy will be removed and we are seeking to secure that it will not be removed if the action is taken by a landlord who, like the tenant, has acquired his interest in the estate as an heir-at-law or a legatee of his former landlord.
The Government have asserted that the tenant who is an heir-at-law or a legatee enjoys some security inasmuch as he has security for the residue of the lease, but, as I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will agree, this is of no help whatsoever to the vast majority of tenants in Scotland. If we are correctly informed, about 65 per cent. of them do not hold the tenancies on a lease at all, but hold them on what is called in Scotland tacit relocation. In those cases, if the tenant were to die now his successors would bear the full brunt of this Clause.
In a vast number of those cases the tenants have provided the fixed equipment. Certainly, for a number of years they have maintained and repaired it. They are the people who have built up the fertility of the farm in the belief that their families would enjoy the advantage and benefit of the work and enterprise that they have undertaken. These people have always taken the view that the security that they received under the provisions of the post-war legislation was most worth while and that has greatly contributed to the improvement of Scottish agriculture in recent years.
By the Amendment we wish to limit the category of person who can evict 424 the tenant who is a successor. It may be a widow of 70 years of age whose husband has just died, or it may be a son of 50 years of age who is an expert farmer. The landlord who is an heir-at-law and who has only acquired his interest in the estate as an heir-at-law might be a young man with no personal knowledge of the farm or estate. Indeed, he may have his residence and place of principal business here in London, or even not in this country at all. Therefore, it would be quite wrong of us to provide that a successor to a landlord with no interest in the locality or district and no knowledge of the farm should be able to evict the widow of 70 or the son of 50 who has succeeded to the tenancy, particularly if the landlord who has succeeded to the estate has not spent any money on it.
If the Government take the view that tenancy rights should not pass from husband to widow or from father to son, then their principles or prejudices should apply equally to the landowner. The landowners have plenty of scope for eviction under Clause 3 without increasing it under Clause 6. Even with our Amendment landlords will have the opportunity to evict tenants quite unjustifiably in many cases. However, we want to limit the effect of Clause 6, and that is what we are seeking to do. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Government.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I beg to second the Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the number of landlords who will be able to give tenants notice to quit. To that extent, it will relieve fears among the farming community in Scotland, which has deep anxieties about what is likely to happen when the Bill has been in operation a couple of years. It will also curb and limit the opportunities of the speculator who is looking forward with interest to what is likely to happen under the Bill and to the power that it will give to the landlord to dispossess the tenant and then have the opportunity to increase the rent.
If the Amendment is carried it will not abolish but will limit the opportunities of landlords to exercise what have been their rights for a number of years, but which have been limited by previous 425 legislation, to evict tenants and so secure the land for themselves, to do what they like and send up the cost of land. The speculators in land will not welcome the Amendment, but people who are interested in the future of the farming community and in the rights of tenants must look upon it as something which will go some way towards alleviating the hardship which will be undoubtedly caused by the Bill.
The Minister may say that the whole principle of hereditary ownership of land is at stake if the Amendment is carried. Of course, that is true. But why should a landlord who owns land, simply because he happens to be one of the 19 illegitimate children of King Robert II, have rights to give notice to a tenant who has done useful work in cultivating the land and making agriculture a success?
We know that the Ministers have a great affection for these kinds of landlord. We believe that these mediaeval customs and aspects of feudalism should go. However, the Government are trying to revive them in the Bill, and not only give them to the old nobility and landed gentry but hand them on to the new generation of land-owning speculators. It is our business to protect the farmer and agricultural worker against these possibilities. We can remove to a certain extent a little of the hardship likely to come on them by means of the Clause, if the Amendment is carried.
§ Sir James Duncan (South Angus)
This is a most equalitarian proposal. I have never seen such a stupid Amendment on the Notice Paper before. It proposes to restrict the number of landlords who can give notice to quit. Speculators are people who buy land. They are not the heirs-at-law, but people who come in new, perhaps from making chemicals or being employed in a co-operative wholesale organisation, and who retire and buy a farm. They are left out of the Opposition Amendment, while the worthy ones are left in. The Amendment also leaves out limited companies.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity last night of bringing limited companies into the Clause, but he voted against our Amendment which dealt with limited companies.
§ Sir J. Duncan
The hon. Gentleman tried without success to bring limited companies within the ambit of the Clause. Today, he has left them out. The people left in cannot be heirs-at-law or legatees, and will be able to give notice to quit. The people who would be caught by the Amendment—if it happened to be carried, which is extremely unlikely—are the genuine heirs.
§ Sir J. Duncan
They are what I would call the best landlords in Scotland, the very people who ought to be encouraged. Those who have fostered the traditional friendship in Scotland between landlord and tenant, owner and occupier, on landed estates ought to be encouraged to look after their land. They have had a rough time, one way and another, over the last few years. They are the best, and they ought to be encouraged to make the best use of their estates, now that there will be a chance under the Bill. I hope that my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will ask the House to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
We have heard a very eloquent plea on behalf of landowners from the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). It would have been more to the point if we had heard a plea on behalf of tenant farmers, who can be evicted, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well.
The Bill will create an immense amount of hardship to a large number of tenant farmers. My hon. Friends tried last night to include limited companies in a similar position, but, having failed, are now trying to save what is left. The Amendment appears to be rather strange. No one denies that, but the tenant farmer who is likely to be protected as the result of the Amendment does not care two hoots whether the Amendment looks strange or not. It seeks to protect tenant farmers who obtained their land as the result of the death of a parent, and so on. They are not concerned whether we put a strange Amendment into the Bill, but with whether we have done something to protect them. They will consider whether the Amendment saves something from the wreckage and gives security to people who are at present living in insecurity.
427 The Amendment would do these things, in spite of it appearing rather strange. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will say that he is prepared to consider the matter.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope)
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) truly pointed out to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) the exact limitations of the Amendment. Looked at even from the erroneous but understandable point of view of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, the Amendment would confine the operation of subsection (3) to cases where the landlord giving notice was not a legatee or heir-at-law, but had acquired ownership of the farm by purchase.
That, I should have thought, was just as much against the spirit of what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire professes to want as it could possibly be. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite will be voting for if they go into the Lobby on it. There can be no argument about that.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Would not the noble Lord agree that the Amendment would limit the number of farmers liable to receive notice to quit?
§ Lord John Hope
It might do that, but what about the unfortunate ones who are at the mercy of the speculators and purchasers whom the hon. Gentleman does not like? That is the point.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) started his speech by reference to the 65 per cent. of tenant farmers who are on tacit relocation. He said that it was their successors who would bear the full brunt of the subsection. Let us see exactly what the full brunt will be, should it fall. That is a very material qualification.
For seven years from the time the Bill becomes law the successor to the remainder of the lease will have, after the lease has run out, a minimum of two years—it will very often be more than that—before he or she goes. That is part of the brunt. The other part of the brunt is that the successor to the remainder of the tenancy is to get full compensation if the Bill becomes law. Therefore, whatever may be thought of the policy which Clause 6 represents, 428 nobody, looking at the matter fairly, can possibly say that the terms which will be carried out are in any way oppressive.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that the successor to the remainder of the lease might be an expert farmer. He mentioned that, obviously, as part of his argument against what he maintains to be the unfairness of that possibly very expert farmer not being offered another lease. What, in fact, is likely to happen? What is likely to happen is that if that Man is an expert farmer he will be offered another lease by the landlord. That is exactly what will happen.
§ Lord John Hope
That is where the hon. Member is in error.
The Landowners' Federation is only too anxious for the maintenance of continuity, and that long leases should come back; and so, of course, are the Government. The former I regard as the more important lead in this matter, because it is in their hands. What will happen is that in the great majority of cases there will be new leases offered to the sons, certainly if they are expert farmers. Apart from an exceptional case where, for a particular reason, it is required to have the farm in hand, I cannot think of any case in which another lease would not be offered.
It really is an absurd exaggeration to talk about a burden and the brunt falling on the successors to the present tenants. It is worth remembering that there is no question of eviction from something to which they have a right.
§ Lord John Hope
Let me finish what I am saying. There is no question of eviction from a tenancy under a contract to which they are a party. They know that nothing can stop them enjoying the remainder of the contract until the end of the contract. It is absurd to talk of eviction from what one is not yet in. Yet that was the impression the hon. Member was trying to give when he was talking of evictions from tenancies not yet offered.
429 The hon. Member also said—I paraphrase his words—that if the Government think that rights should not pass from father to son automatically, that is, if they are tenants, then they ought to say the same about landlords.
§ Lord John Hope
I do not know why the hon. Member said this. I should like to know. But he did, if I am paraphrasing the hon. Member correctly.
There was one thing in this connection which interested me. I think it was significant. It was common to both the hon. Member for Hamilton and to his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. Neither of them so much as mentioned the fact that the landlord inherits obligations as well as rights. The words "inherited obligations" did not fall from the lips of either of the hon. Members. The fact is, as the hon. Member knows very well, that a landlord, whether he be young or old—and the hon. Member talked of young landlords knowing nothing about it—inherits these obligations from which he cannot escape.
Therefore, it is not a one-sided affair, that he should inherit the rights which are his due. He comes into what is his by law. Whether he wants to or not he thereby inherits obligations, and it is surely not unreasonable that he should inherit the reasonable rights of ownership which go with those obligations.
So much for the principle behind the Amendment. The Amendment would not necessarily achieve its object even if it were passed, for this reason, that an owner who had inherited a farm could perfectly well go through the motions of selling it quickly to a member of his family, to his wife, for example, who would then be in a position to give the necessary notice to quit.
§ Lord John Hope
Or could form a company. Therefore, it would be unwise in the extreme to accept this Amendment, which is unfair on its merits, and which, even if it were passed, would not work in the way in which it is intended to work.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has talked the most awful nonsense in reply to this debate. [Interruption.] He thought it was rather good? I am not surprised that he thought it was rather good. Everybody else thinks that it was a very silly speech. He talked of obligations inherited by landlords. Are not obligations inherited by tenants at the present time?
§ Mr. John Mackie (Galloway)
On a point of order. Has the hon. Member asked the leave of the House to address the House again on this matter, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is quite entitled to speak a second time on this Amendment. The Bill was considered in Standing Committee.
§ Mr. Fraser
The Joint Under-Secretary called our attention to the fact that landlords do not inherit rights only, but also obligations. He said that I had omitted to mention this. I did not talk about obligations at all. He obviously and with deliberation omitted to mention the obligations of the tenants. Tenants, like landlords, have obligations in law. Tenants have obligations to farm their farms in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, and landlords have obligations to manage their estates in accordance with the rules of good estate management. By the Bill, I mention only in passing, the Government are deliberately easing the responsibilities of landlords for good estate management without easing the responsibilities of tenants for good husbandry.
The Joint Under-Secretary made his case against the Amendment by showing that, in his view, there is no need to give any security in law to tenants at all beyond the security given to them in a lease. If he does not know that he made that case I hope that he will read his speech carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because that was the case he made, that they should go back to the old system of long leases, go back to the old system which operated before the 1948 Act. Does the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) say that I opposed long leases? I did not oppose long leases.
§ Sir James Henderson-Stewart (Fife, East)
Will the hon. Member tell the House whether he is in favour of long leases?
§ Mr. Fraser
Yes, I am in favour of long leases, but I am not prepared to rest entirely on the leases which have been granted by the owners. That is why, with the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for Fife, East, about ten years ago we gave security of tenure to the tenant farmers of Scotland.
I repeat what I said earlier, that the tenant farmers believe that to be the most worthwhile provision which was written into the post-war legislation. Now the hon. Baronet, who was so enthusiastic ten years ago for the reforms which were then being made, is doing his utmost to whittle away those advantages which were given to the tenant farmers of Scotland, and to lessen the security of tenure which was then given.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that we cannot take something away from a tenant if he has not already got it, that if he has no lease or tenancy we cannot take it away and, therefore, we are dealing with his successors. But the whole point of the Clause is to take away from tenants and their families something which they have had in law and not something written into a lease. It is the security given to them deliberately, not by mistake, ten years ago. Parliament then gave them a measure of security which they have never had before, and now the Joint Under-Secretary is taking it away from them, and he says that we cannot take something away from them which they do not have at present.
The noble Lord also says that we on this side of the House do not seem to fully realise the limitations of the Amendment. Of course we do. The immediately preceding Amendment, in
§ line 27, sought to take out subsections (3), (4) and (5) but you, Mr. Speaker, decided not to call it. We should like to see those subsections taken out of the Bill altogether. I cannot argue that now, but I do not want the Joint Under-Secretary to leave the impression that we are quite willing to let these subsections remain in the Bill with this small Amendment. Not at all, we want them all to go.
§ The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that the Amendment says nothing about companies, but you Mr. Speaker, would not have permitted me to resurrect this afternoon the Amendment which the hon. Member voted down last night. I wanted to provide that companies should not be able to give notice to quit at all under the subsection, but the hon. Member said that they should, and now he complains that they will be the only people able to give notice to quit if the Amendment is accepted.
§ If the Clause is to stand we cannot protect 100 per cent. of the people affected by it. What we put forward in the Amendment will be protection for 90 per cent. and the Joint Under-Secretary asks, "If you cannot save 100 per cent., why save 90 per cent.?" Let us have the Amendment and save 90 per cent., and let the noble Lord and his noble Friends save the other 10 per cent. when the Bill goes to another place. In all the circumstances, it seems to us on this side of the House that it is worth saving the 90 per cent., and if the Clause looks quite silly when it goes to another place, let the noble Lord take out subsections (3) (4) and (5) altogether.
§ I hope that my hon. Friends will go in to the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 238.435
|Division No. 175.]||AYES||[4.3 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.|
|Albu, A. H.||Blackburn, F.||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Blenkinsop, A.||Brown, Thomas (Ince)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Blyton, W. R.||Burke, W. A.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Grewe)||Boardman, H.||Burton, Miss F. E.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Bonham Carter, Mark||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Callaghan, L. J.|
|Balfour, A.||Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Carmichael, J.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Champion, A. J.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Bowles, F. G.||Chetwynd, G. R.|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)||Boyd, T. C.||Clunie, J.|
|Benson, Sir George||Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)|
|Beswick, Frank||Brockway, A. F.||Corbet, Mrs. Freda|
|Cove, W. G.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)||Probert, A. R.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Randall, H. E.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Rankin, John|
|Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Reid, William|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Rhodes, H.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Kenyon, C.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Deer, G.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|de Freitas Geoffrey||King, Dr. H. M.||Royle, C.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Lawson, G. M.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Donnelly, D. L.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Lewis, Arthur||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Lindgren, G. S.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Logan, D. G.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Snow, J. W.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||McGovern, J.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||McLeavy, Frank||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Fernyhough, E.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Steele, T.|
|Finch, H. J.||Mahon, Simon||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Fitch, E. A.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Foot, D. M.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Forman, J. C.||Mason, Roy||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Messer, Sir F.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)||Mikardo, Ian||Swingler, S. T.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mitchison, G. R.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Monslow, W.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Grey, C. F.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Grimond, J.||Mort, D. L.||Tomney, F.|
|Hale, Leslie||Moss, R.||Wade, D. W.|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Moyle, A.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Hastings, S.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Healey, Denis||Oliver, G. H.||West, D. G.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Oram, A. E.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Orbach, M.||Willey, Frederick|
|Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Oswald, T.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Holman, P.||Owen, W. J.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Holt, A. F.||Padley, W. E.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Paget, R. T.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Woof, R. E.|
|Hunter, A. E.||Paton, John||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Pearson, A.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Peart, T. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Pentland, N.||Mr. John Taylor and|
|Janner, B.||Popplewell, E.||Mr. Simmons.|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||du Cann, E. D. L.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Boyle, Sir Edward||Dugdale, R. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Braine, B. R.||Duncan, Sir James|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Duthie, W. S.|
|Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Brooman-White, R. C.||Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Erroll, F. J.|
|Ashton, H.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Farey-Jones, F. W.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Campbell, Sir David||Fell, A.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Carr, Robert||Fletcher-Cooke, C.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Cary, Sir Robert||Fort, R.|
|Balniel, Lord||Chichester-Clark, R.||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)|
|Barber, Anthony||Cooke, Robert||Gammans, Lady|
|Barlow, Sir John||Cooper, A. E.||Garner-Evans, E. H.|
|Batsford, Brian||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Gibson-Watt, D.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Glyn, Col. Richard H.|
|Beamish, Col. Tufton||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Godber, J. B.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Cunningham, Knox||Goodhart, Philip|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Currie, G. B. H.||Gough, C. F. H.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Dance, J. C. G.||Gower, H. R.|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Davidson, Viscountess||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Grant, W. (Woodside)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Deedes, W. F.||Green, A.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Black, C. W.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Body, R. F.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.|
|Boothby, Sir Robert||Drayson, G. B.||Gurden, Harold|
|Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Llewellyn, D. T.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Redmayne, M.|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Hay, John||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Robertson, Sir David|
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||McAdden, S. J.||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||McKibbin, Alan||Russell, R. S.|
|Hesketh, R. F.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Sharples, R. C.|
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Shepherd, William|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)|
|Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Speir, R. M.|
|Hope, Lord John||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Hornby, R. P.||Maddan, Martin||Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Storey, S.|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Teeling, W.|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Temple, John M.|
|Hurd, A. R.||Marshall, Douglas||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)||Mathew, R.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)||Mawby, R. L.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Hyde, Montgomery||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Nairn, D. L. S.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Neave, Airey||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Nicholls, Harmar||Vaughan Morgan, J. K.|
|Joseph, Sir Keith||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Noble, Michael (Argyll)||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Kaberry, D.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Keegan, D.||Oakshott, H. D.||Wall, Patrick|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Osborne, C.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Kershaw, J. A.||Page, R. G.||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Kimball, M.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Kirk, P. M.||Partridge, E.||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Peel, W. J.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Peyton, J. W. W.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Langford-Holt, J. A.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Leburn, W. G.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Pitman, I. J.|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Powell, J. Enoch||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Mr. Edward Wakefield and|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Mr. Bryan.|