HC Deb 06 May 1958 vol 587 cc1093-122
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

The next Amendment selected is the second of the three Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low)—in page 14, line 14, to leave out "first year" and to insert "years". I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment with the following Amendment in the name of the same right hon. Gentleman—in line 16, to leave out from the first "section" to the end of line 20.

Sir Roland Robinson (Blackpool, South)

I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, to leave out "first year" and to insert "years".

My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not wish to move the first of these three Amendments but to base our arguments this time on the second Amendment, which I am now moving, and to which the third is consequential. Therefore, we should be very happy to discuss the whole problem at once.

The purpose of our Amendments is to extend the transitional period under the Act to such time as may be specified by the regulations made under the Act. Later, on Report stage, we hope that we may have the opportunity, if these Amendments are carried, of suggesting a period of five years for the period of transition. That matter will be open to discussion, and we are putting it forward only as a suggestion.

The principles which we have at stake were given full discussion last night on an Amendment which was so forcibly and ably moved by my right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low). Out of that discussion last night there emerged the fact that we who mainly come from the holiday resorts feel that we represent areas which have been very highly assessed where rates are concerned, and which are already bearing quite a heavy burden. We are perfectly willing to meet the burden which we have had to carry throughout the years, and we are not asking that any extra money should be given to us other than what we have at the present time. We are simply asking that, because of this new Local Government Bill, we should not have to make a larger contribution from our own rates.

On the other hand, there was a strong difference of opinion, coming mainly from the other side of the Committee, and led, in the first place, by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who took the view very strongly that we in the resorts were very grossly under-assessed and should pay more rates. That view was supported by quite a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

I was interested last night when my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) invited the Minister to speak in her constituency. I think my right hon. Friend and I would be prepared to give a like invitation to any hon. Members on the other side of the Committee who feel so strongly that we are not paying our share of the rates burden. We would like them to say that in our constituencies, and we would be more delighted still if they would instruct the Labour Party candidates in the current elections to come out quite honestly and say that that is the policy of the party opposite. However, I do not think that they would want to do that. They would prefer many of the things said last night not to be said until after the elections are over.

I must tell the Minister that we who are taking the view supported in this series of Amendments have been amongst his most loyal supporters, and that we are only coming out strongly here because we feel a very real sense of injustice. We think that that is something he should bear in mind, because we have stood by him in good times and bad, and there have been bad times, and it is only because we think that a mistake is being made that we are coming out so strongly in this matter today. We have supported my right hon. Friend throughout the whole of this Bill. We agree with the view which he has put forward that local authorities, as far as possible, should run their own shows, but this will make it difficult for us to run them as we would want to run them, and as he would want them run, if at the beginning of a new scheme he is taking a very substantial sum of money from us.

Hon. Members opposite take a very easy view that resorts are very rich areas. They come and see us in holiday times, when people are happy and we are putting on our shows, but they forget the hard work done for their entertainment, and, above all, they forget the long weary months in winter, when the hotels are empty, when the catering houses are closed and when we have long unemployment queues. I think these things ought to be made very clear when taunts are made that we are rich boroughs and should jolly well pay more.

I think the truer thing to say is that, by and large, most of the holiday resorts have a very high rateable value, and that is the reason why the amount of the rate in the £ appears to be lower than it is elsewhere. In fact, we are paying per head far more than the average throughout the whole of the country. My right hon. Friend gave comparable figures last night between Blackpool and the average, and the fact stands out that per head we are paying £2 18s. 9d. more than the average in the country. I hardly need to stress, as we have stressed before, that we are prepared to bear that extra burden, but we ask that it should not be increased.

6.45 p.m.

We are all very much concerned about the development of educational facilities throughout the country. Pressure has been brought from all sides that the same educational facilities should continue to be available. The town which I represent is paying 89s. 11d. per head for education. The average throughout the country is 81s. 3d. We are therefore paying 8s. 8d. more than the average. I believe that Bourneimouth pays rather higher than we do. After the first two years Blackpool will be paying about 10d. in the £ more in rates. That means that our ratepayers will be asked to pay a higher rate for exactly the same services as they are receiving today. It will not be easy to put that across.

We believe that the town hall should have these new powers, but it will be extraordinarily difficult for us to face the future without terrible difficulty if we have to carry on the same standard of education and the same amenities, while, as the result of the Bill and of the way in which this scheme is worked out, being forced to put up rates. Many of these areas are not so rich as some hon. Members think. Some places may feel that they cannot bear the burden at all.

I have listened with great interest to the discussion. I would remind hon. Members that we are already paying to the full. The industry in the resorts is the tourist industry, and there is no derating for it. Our hotels are high-rated. Catering institutions and entertainment places like the Blackpool Tower pay thousands of pounds in rates. This industry has had no relief from derating. The ordinary citizen still has to pay a high rate to get the facilities that we have developed. That is why we ask the Minister to give us his help. Thousands of retired people come from all over the country to live in Blackpool. I was interested in an earlier speech from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who truly said that rates are quite a considerable and rising part of the budget of the small householder. It is for the small householder that we are making an appeal. It is not just that our small householders should have to bear so great a burden in comparison with householders in the rest of the country.

I would refresh the mind of the Minister in regard to differences in rateable values. My right hon. Friend spoke of a temporary bungalow in St. Helens which was rated at £12. The figure for a similar bungalow in Blackpool is £22. We pay £3 11s. 6d. more for a like bungalow. Here is an injustice. We have all seen the hypothetical figures which were put up; it is easy to say that they may not be so and are hypothetical. They were, m fact, figures produced by the Minister, the statisticians and the mathematicians of his Department who are surely some of the best rates experts in the country.

These figures have put us on notice. We have to look at what the position is going to be. We have raised this matter time and time again. In spite of what was said from the Opposition benches, the Minister knows full well that for nine months or longer we have been raising this matter with him and his colleague. There has been plenty of opportunity for him to find a formula which would help us. No political principles are at stake, but only a matter of finding a fair, just method of working out a measure of equality between town and town and between man and man.

We come to the Minister with this Amendment and place ourselves very much in his hands. We are asking for an extension of the transitory period in order to bridge the situation. I hope he will listen to our plea and try to give help where it is needed. We will bear the burden which we already have, although it is larger than it is elsewhere, but we ask that it be not increased.

Mr. William Teeling (Brighton, Pavilion)

We are making a mistake in referring only to seaside and holiday resorts, because other towns are very much involved in these problems. I think that my right hon. Friend realises that.

I took no part in the debate on this subject yesterday, because plenty of others were doing so, but I was interested to note some of the criticisms by the Opposition. This is not a sudden rush of Conservative Members pressing their Minister. For quite a long time we have been trying to do this in private. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicholson) spoke in Committee for the areas that were seriously involved. We were not to know that we should not get the support of the Minister when we put forward our problem. It was too late when we found that the Minister was not particularly sympathetic.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

That lets the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Teeling

When we found the Minister was not supporting us we were half way through the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch did very noble work for all our towns, and for my own area in particular, which supplied a good deal of information which was valuable to my hon. Frind and was used by him. The Minister therefore knows full well what our problems are.

Another thing of particular interest was when a certain hon. Member of the Opposition told us that we really ought to have higher rates. That is particularly interesting in view of the fact that Labour councillors and their supporters in Brighton have been saying that they may win Brighton as a Labour council next Thursday. One of the best ways to make certain that they will not is for every newspaper connected with the area to point out that Labour's main ambition will be to increase the rates.

I cannot see why holiday resorts should be considered to be rich. Surely cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool and other large industrial areas are the rich places. In the old days the idea was that industrial areas were poor. Everybody was poor there. I think we have far more poor people living in Brighton than live in Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester. It is much easier to find employment in those cities than in Brighton, where we have no factories worth talking about. Like Blackpool, we have not had the advantages that industrial towns have had. At the moment, Brighton has double the amount of unemployment as compared with the national average. That will not make it easy for us if we find ourselves with considerably higher rates to pay.

I want my right hon. Friend to realise that we are all very serious about this matter and that even if our numbers are not enough to affect any vote in this Committee we deserve to be treated with as much sympathy as any other part of the country. When about £10 million is to be divided over the country as a whole, why should something be taken from us? Why take from an area to which people go in the autumn of their lives to live on the small, middle-class incomes that they have been able to save? It is very hard that our Government should be responsible for this sort of thing when they have said that they are doing everything to help. These people are suffering worse than anybody from the rising cost of living. Why should the Government put this particular burden upon us?

Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne)

Ever since the end of the war, Governments have been paying lip-service to the tourist industry and to the home holiday industry. My constituency was largely evacuated during the war and compulsorily. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) make scathing remarks about seaside resorts, particularly as he was Deputy-Regional Commissioner for the South-Eastern area during the war, and should know something about these resorts and how they suffered as a result of evacuation and bombing.

Only after much hard work on the part of our people, running small boarding houses, businesses, hotels, etc., have we recently been able to get back to normal. It has been done by hard work and determination. I admit that some rich people may be living in my constituency, but there are many more living in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and the other great cities.

7.0 p.m.

I should remind the Committee that there is a very high incidence of bankruptcy among the small boardinghouse keepers and the small hotel keepers throughout the country. Therefore, one cannot say that those who run boardinghouses and small hotels at the seaside resorts, who have a season of, perhaps, only three or four months during the year, are living lives of luxury. The people who run those establishments are not rich. They are not themselves bound by the provisions of the Catering Wages Act. They are willing to work long hours and put in a great deal of time to make a fair and reasonable living in the short time at their disposal.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) has said, there is no derating of hotels compared with industry. They are not treated in the same way as a factory or a business. In fact, the only way that any kind of similar relief can be obtained for a hotel that closes down during the winter is to move out all the furnishings and furniture into store, which obviously is not possible.

Some of the northern resorts of Belgium, Holland and France do not have any better climate than we do and they have no better amenities than we have, except, perhaps, a casino, although it is not everybody who wants a casino. Their Governments, however, seem to have done everything they can to try to get holiday trade from here and from other countries of Europe, so that people will spend their money in these European holiday resorts.

We are not asking the Government for any additional money. We are perfectly prepared, certainly in my constituency and others on whose behalf hon. Members have spoken, both today and last night, to compete with these European holiday resorts on level terms, but we feel that this additional blow to our holiday resorts is too much. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) began his speech by reminding the Committee that we are not solely concerned with seaside resorts. The seaside resorts form perhaps about one-half of the category of town of which we are speaking. The others are inland watering places, spas, cathedral cities and some of the larger market towns—the heartland, if I may so describe it, of the Conservative Party. They are the Baedeker towns of Britain. To them, this part of the Bill appears to be another Baedeker raid and this is a Baedeker Amendment. All that we are seeking to do is to restore, before it is too late, an element of justice which, I feel sure, my right hon. Friend the Minister would want us to have.

My right hon. Friend has been most patient with us throughout the last twelve months when we have pressed our case and he has gone into the problem with the greatest care. In spite of that, however, he has not been able to meet us on any significant point.

Speaking for myself, I am not putting up this battle, for that is what it is, merely to gain a little popularity, which, goodness knows, I badly need in my constituency. I believe, and I have demonstrated my belief on other occasions, that when a Member is not sincerely convinced by the case put forward by his constituents, he has no right to come to the House of Commons and speak with their voice but without his own mind. In this case, however, I am utterly convinced by the case which has been put up to me by my local authority. I live there. I know the people. I know exactly what they are feeling and fearing and I feel obliged to reflect those feelings and fears in this Committee. If I did not do so, truly I would not know the meaning even of a representative, let alone of a delegate, to the House of Commons.

The case has been fairly and fully made for the position of the resort towns. I wish to devote this short speech to an examination of the remarks which my right hon. Friend made yesterday. The Committee may remember that he asked us to consider three questions. The first was: are the main changes beneficial in themselves? To that, I would unhesitatingly answer "Yes". The second question was: can they be introduced without violent and quite unjustifiable changes in the rate burden? To that, I would say that in the great majority of cases the answer is "Yes". In the category of authority that we are discussing, however, it is, "No".

My right hon. Friend's third question was: are there satisfactory arrangements within the Bill for gradually introducing the financial effect of any changes? To that question, my reply would be that the arrangements are not sufficiently satisfactory.

During the last 24 hours, a new note has crept into our discussion of this subject. There has been a suggestion that in some way or other, one of the purposes of the Bill is to remedy a past injustice. There has been the suggestion that until this moment, certain authorities, of which, presumably, mine is one, have been getting too big a slice of the national cake and that certain other authorities, mainly represented by hon. Members opposite, have been receiving too little a share of what the Exchequer has to give towards their expenses. I cannot see that there is any reason for that argument.

My right hon. Friend said yesterday that any major scheme of this nature is bound to result in some authorities getting rather more and some rather less."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 971–2.] I see why some should get more and I am glad that they are getting more. I fail to see why any should get less. Why should they get less when there is another £9 or £10 million available for distribution? Why should they get less when it is within the power of the Minister, or of any future Minister, at any moment he wishes, to increase the aggregate sum which is to be distributed in the way of the general grant?

The whole purpose of our Amendment is to suggest to the Minister and the Committee that no authority should be obliged either to raise its rate burden to a level which its citizens cannot afford without hardship or to cut down its present local services. We say that if there is to be a deficiency it should be made up from the Exchequer or from a more equitable distribution of the extra money which is available.

My right hon. Friend had two answers to this proposition. He said that by the Bill he has created the skeleton of a formula which will be flexible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 974.] Let us pursue that analogy. If my body were reduced to a skeleton, which it soon may be if the Bill goes on much longer, it is true that my skull could still be rotated upon my vertebrae and that a man could lift the bones of my arms and flex my fingers, but nobody could alter the proportions between my head and my body and my legs. Those are fixed.

A better analogy of what we are now in the process of doing is to say that we are constructing a framework and solidifying the joints. When we have passed this stage we shall not be able to tamper with that framework at all. All we can do is to make certain adjustments within it. How can my right hon. Friend, or any future Minister, within the terms of the formula, make adjustments which will remove the anomaly and the injustice of which we are complaining? It will not be possible.

It could be said that he could give a fantastic weighting for elderly people, which is itself part of the formula and which would certainly benefit our towns, but it is inconceivable that he could give such weighting to that element that we should be compensated for all the other ways in which we lose.

The Minister's second argument was that it is impossible at this time to foresee exactly what is likely to occur after 1961 and that until that time we shall have any loss that we eventually suffer made up in the first year to the extent of 100 per cent. and in the second year to the extent of 90 per cent. I wonder why the year 1961 is assumed to be that in which the whole picture will change. Again, we have been given two reasons. My right hon. Friend mentioned yesterday the revaluation of house property. But is it very likely that the houses of a seaside resort will be valued at a lower rate than they are at the moment? Is it likely that we shall gain by that process? The probability surely is that we shall lose still further.

It was said, secondly, that Clause 15, which we are discussing, allows for the possibility of extending the period of grace and that we must not assume that, because in the second year only 90 per cent. compensation is made there will be no compensation at all in further years. That is not much comfort to us when the Bill says that it is possible to make no compensation at all in those subsequent years.

There is a further factor which we on this side of the Committee must consider very seriously, and it is the possibility that by 1961 there may be a Labour Government. When one takes out an insurance policy one has to allow for the most fantastic possibilities, and that is one of them. We know very well, from the attitude of memberw of the Labour Party, what they are likely to say to us if we go to them cap in hand in 1961. They are not likely to have the same sympathy with the Conservative towns of Bournemouth and the other seaside resorts as my right hon. Friend has had with their towns in the Bill.

I sometimes wonder whether, in the privacy of their party committee, Labour Members have not reconsidered the wisdom of stubbornly opposing a Bill which brings such inestimable benefits to their own constituencies. We shall not get from them any return of the gain which my right hon. Friend is now handing over to them.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred yesterday to this demonstration from this side of the Committee as an "extraordinarily foolish affair." It is extraordinarily foolish to the hon. and learned Member only because he foresees the possibility that my right hon. Friend may be persuaded to take away a penny or two from the 5d. which Kettering is receiving out of the Bill. I wonder whether that is a very statesmanlike or unselfish attitude.

We have put down the Amendment and we hope that the Minister will accept it. This is our last effort to persuade him to meet our argument in a way which he considers equitable and which will give us something to tell our constituents about the justice of the Conservative Party.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) mentioned that it was not only the seaside resorts which suffered under the implications of the Bill and which would receive a benefit were the Minister to accept the Amendment. On the page in the White Paper issued by the Minister in February, 1958, the name of my constituency appears and there are several other constituencies which are affected in a similar manner to my own—East Ham, Gloucester, Reading and Rotherham. I am surprised that we have not had some comment from hon. Members representing those constituencies to ensure that justice is done to them as well as to those represented by Conservatives.

I do not propose to go into a detailed examination of the method by which these grants are being calculated. I wish to detain the Committee for only a very few moments while I make one point. My constituency, Exeter, will suffer a loss of over £50,000 a year by the introduction of the direct grant system. I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the difference which exists between the block grant received by Exeter and that received by Barnsley. I mention those two cities because I represent Exeter and because Barnsley has a similar total population to Exeter: Barnsley has a total population of 75,300 and Exeter has a total population of 76,900. The grant which Exeter receives under the Government's proposals is £357,000, while Barnsley will receive £606,000. It is this extraordinary disparity to which I wish to address myself in the few moments for which I shall detain the Committee.

One of the main reasons for the considerable increase in the Barnsley grant is that there are more children in Barnsley than in Exeter. As in the case of so many of the seaside resorts, a number of people come to Exeter to retire and the population of children is not so great. There are about 10,500 children on the rolls of our schools in Exeter, compared with 14,900 in Barnsley. The amount of the grant received by Barnsley is two-thirds more than that received by Exeter, although the number of children is well below 50 per cent. more. I wonder whether, in his reply my right hon. Friend, would give an explanation of this discrepancy.

The trouble about this question of the size of the grant for particular county boroughs arises from the method by which the factors are arrived at. The highly rated areas, such as the seaside resorts about which several of my hon. Friends have spoken, and such cities as Exeter, suffer because they receive no benefit under the rate deficiency grant, which, of course, takes the place of the old Exchequer equalisation grant. In addition, the rate product deduction factor bears heavily on a county borough which is highly rated.

I do not want to enlarge on the fact that cities such as my own, and seaside resorts, also, have to cater for a number of people who do not live within their boundaries. That aspect of the matter was adequately considered yesterday. Nevertheless, I am certain that if this burden on the seaside resorts and such cities as my own is not lightened, there may be a great temptation for local authorities, in order to ease the burden on the ratepayers, to cut down their facilities for education. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something to mitigate my fears and those of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Those of us who have lived with this Bill for about 80 hours in Standing Committee know what very great study and care my right hon. Friend has given not only to the general principle of the general grant but to the details of the formula by which are to be calculated both the basic grant and the supplementary grant, and, too, the sincerity with which he has put forward the argument in favour of it in Committee. I, for one, would be very reluctant to alter the formula which has been worked out so carefully or to tamper with the principle of the general grant.

Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) and my other hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment have put a very strong case which undoubtedly arouses sympathy far beyond the bounds of the seaside resorts. Their case may well apply not only to the seaside resorts but to towns such as the university towns and inland spas and what one may call the show places, such as Stratford-on-Avon.

Their argument seems to me to boil down to one main factor, that at certain times of the year these towns have to provide for three or four times their normal population. Incidentally, they are towns in which a very great number of retired people live on fixed incomes. My right hon. Friend said, in effect if I understood him aright, that he could meet this sort of problem, and he put it in a phrase with which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has made some play, as has also my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson); but I think that his phrase expresses what is intended by the formula in the Bill. My right hon. Friend said: The manner in which the Government have sought to deal with the matter is to write into the Bill the skeleton of a formula which will be flexible and adjustable when each general grant order is made in the light of the circumstances at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 974.] So one looks in Part II of the First Schedule and the provisions relating to the basic grant and the supplementary grant to see in what way those problems are met. Certainly the problem of retired population is met to a great degree in paragraph 3 of Part II by provision of a supplementary grant for the number in the population over 65. My hon. Friends have put forward such a strong case that I do not think any Minister could refuse to give a reasonable weighting which would compensate any local authority which might be, if I may so put it, overburdened with elderly people.

Then one turns to further paragraphs in that part of the Schedule, and I believe that the Minister, operating these supplementary grants, could very easily give weight to my hon. Friend's arguments. There is provision in paragraph 5 whereby a supplementary grant is available for an extra number of persons per acre. I do not use the word "population", fecause I think the Minister may be bound by the census figures of population; and, moreover, in paragraph 5 the phrase "number of persons" is used. In other paragraphs of that part of the Schedule the Minister is given power to make regulations as to how the number of persons shall be calculated.

If my right hon. Friend is convinced, as indeed I am sure many of us are, by the very sound case put forward by my hon. Friends from the seaside resorts, if he is convinced that that case may apply to other towns than the seaside resorts, could he not use the formula in that Schedule relating to the numbers of persons in the population and to the weighting for elderly people to meet that case? I am, frankly, endeavouring to pour oil on troubled waters. I believe that there is no need for these troubled waters. I believe that the Minister has power to do exactly what my hon. Friends want him to do, and I believe that they have made out such a case that no Minister could refuse to assist them.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe (Hove)

I want to detain the Committee only for two minutes in support of the Amendment. It has been rightly said that this is not merely a problem limited to seaside resorts. I want to come to what I believe to be the fundamental fallacy which underlies the Minister's approach to this matter. It certainly was the case, I suppose, in the past that the coastal areas were generally wealthier than the industrial areas, but what the right hon. Gentleman appears to have failed to recognise is that since those days there has been a social revolution.

The money today is in the industrial areas. That is where the wealth of the country is being created, and it is not the fact that the people who live in the coastal resorts today have the money which they used to have in the past. They may not, perhaps, contribute to the production of the country as those in the industrial areas do, but most of them have done so in their time, and they have earned their right to their rest, and have gone to the seaside resorts to live in the expectation of being able to live out the rest of their lives without the financial worry which this Bill in its present form may impose upon them.

We cannot look for sympathy from hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who naturally suppose that the areas which return, in the main, Conservative Members must be wealthy parts of the country. The reason why most of them return Conservative Members is that they were ruined in six years of Socialism. They hope for and look to this Government to give them relief. They do not understand or see any justice in the idea, and nor do those of us who represent them, that because they were once prosperous the seaside resorts should now be milked to subsidise wealthy industrial areas.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this, and to realise that those of us who are critical of him in this matter are in earnest about it and really do feel that they must call upon him to change his mind.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I have no doubt whatever about the earnestness of the speeches which have been delmvered and I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) that no one appreciates more than I the shifts in prosperity which have taken place—shifts, if I may say so, between the seaside resorts themselves. Certainly some of them have lost in prosperity since 1939; some may have gained, I do not know.

The point in the case which has been put to me which I find difficult to follow is that these areas are said to be very highly assessed. We have now got assessments on a universal basis. There is central valuation for rating. We have an elaborate provision for appeals so that, if the machinery is working properly, everybody throughout the country should be fairly assessed, which could not have been said in days gone past when individual local authorities were their own assessment authorities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) spoke of temporary bungalows. The reason temporary bungalows may be assessed higher in some places than in others is that it might be, and propably is, pleasanter to live in a temporary bungalow in a certain situation than in other situations. I do not want to say anything against St. Helens during a period when it is not represented in this House, but we can all think of places where we would sooner be in a temporary bungalow. If we go to a more pleasant place we have to pay higher rates.

7.30 p.m.

My hon. Friends have made it perfectly clear that they are not here asking for extra money from the Exchequer. In this the Amendment differs from one which my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) will remember we discussed in the Standing Committee. Then my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied to another Amendment of a different character, which sought to ensure that during the transitional period the losses of losing authorities should be made up, not by taking from the gaining authorities, but by taking from the Treasury. That case was argued on the ground that what the gaining authorities were gaining represented an act of belated justice and, therefore, they should not be kept out of their money any longer.

I am not saying for a moment that precise justice is done between each pair of local authorities by any formula. I think this Bill, broadly, is going to establish a fairer distribution than hitherto. I have particularly in mind that the system of rate deficiency grant is likely to give those benefits more precisely where they are needed than the old system of Exchequer equalisation grants. I would again remind the Committee that on this Amendment we are not, as on last night's Amendment, to direct our attention only to seaside resorts. Of all the 1,400 local authorities, a much larger number will gain than will lose under the Bill. Nevertheless, there will be quite a fair number of losers, going far beyond the group of a dozen or so seaside authorities on whose behalf my hon. Friends have spoken.

I think we have got to consider carefully, all of us, whether it is right that we should continue for a period of five years—I think my hon. Friend suggested that—a transitional scheme under which money will be held back from those who are gaining authorities under the Bill in order to ensure that for a period as long as five years there shall be no losing authorities. We must bear in mind that there are authorities which have felt a genuine sense of grievance from the system of rating for electricity, for instance, which we are altering, and from other matters. I stand by this general principle, that the new system of distribution, broadly speaking, will be fairer and more just than we have had hitherto.

One of my hon. Friends suggested that the tourist industry, on which the seaside resorts so largely live and thrive, was unkindly treated by successive Governments and that they never got anything out of it. He said that industry enjoyed no benefit from derating, whereas productive industry generally does. Surely there he was going astray because hotels and most guest houses do enjoy the benefit of 20 per cent. derating under the 1957 Act——

Sir C. Taylor

Not to the same extent as industrial premises.

Mr. Brooke

It really was not right to contend that there is no derating at all for hotels in those places. I hope my hon. Friend will grant that it was a good thing from the point of view of the hotel and tourist industry that the 1957 Act was passed and the 20 per cent. derating was granted.

Sir C. Taylor

I was, of course, comparing them with other industrial premises.

Mr. Brooke

I want to revert to the point about the scope of the effect of any such Amendment. I have been looking at the figures. It is by no means the case that all seaside places and "Baedeker towns", as they were described, are losers, whereas the rest of the country comprises gainers under the Bill. The Amendment suggests that during the period, not of one year but of five years, we should take money away from the gaining authorities. Among those I see Canterbury, which I certainly should have thought would be classified as a Baedeker town. There are also Plymouth and Yarmouth, which I certainly should have thought were by the sea. I notice South Shields, Tynemouth, Wallasey and Worcester. So much has been said to me, and I am so keenly aware of the state of the Tyne, that I would hesitate to say that Newcastle was on the sea.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

My right hon. Friend had better not.

Mr. Brooke

I know it sufficiently to regard it as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Worcester might well be described as a Baedeker town. These towns are gainers under the Bill. I think some of my hon. Friends had in mind that the Bill militated particularly against Conservative authorities.

Dame Irene Ward

So it does.

Mr. Brooke

They fear that a future Government, of a different character, would have no sympathy with these losing authorities and might be prepared to treat them as harshly as they liked. This is the first time I have heard it suggested that the County Boroughs of Rotherham or East Ham are Conservative authorities. I hope that East Ham will soon be a Conservative authority, but it is not at the moment. It really is not the case that we can tell by whether a borough is Conservative or Labour in its policy that it is a loser or a gainer under this Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) referred specifically to the comparison between Barnsley and Exeter. On the spur of the moment, I could not reply in detail to the questions he raised on how the difference came about. I have not got in my head the actual rate poundages for the two places in the current year. I think I am right in saying that the rate poundage in Exeter last year was 14s. 10d. in the £ and that in Barnsley it was 20s. I can well imagine that Clause 9 of the Bill, to which we have just agreed, might quite substantially increase the product of a penny rate in Barnsley, more so than in Exeter, through Barnsley having a greater proportion of derated industry. If that is so, it would tend to explain why Barnsley might appear to be a gaining authority through its rate level falling, even though there might not be very much difference in the way those two boroughs fared in respect of Government grants under the Bill. One has to take all these matters into consideration.

I really do not see how we could, in fairness, say that the transitional arrangements for 1959–60 were to extend for a further period of years. I will not repeat that dangerous phrase about the skeleton of the formula, but I will re-emphasise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has done, the flexibility of the arrangement. It will be when each general grant Order is made that we must carefully examine all the figures to be prescribed in connection with each of the items, so as to produce as fair a result as possible.

I can certainly say that when we lay the first general grant Order, in the autumn of this year, we shall review all those figures. We shall not just take them as they were in the 1957 White Paper and serve them up again without thorough re-examination. As I have stressed on many occasions, that formula is so flexible that one can take virtually any proper consideration into account in composing and utilising it.

There is one further point. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) asked me last night—but took me unawares—whether the regulations to be made under Clause 15 for the transitional arrangement for 1961 onwards were to be subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House. I could not then see in my mind's eye that portion of the Act. I think that that was understandable because, having looked it up, I realise that it does not come in this Bill at all. In fact, I was quite right in thinking that the regulations are subject to Parliamentary control and to annulment on a Prayer, but that is not specifically provided for in the Bill. Clause 16 applies the 1948 Local Government Act to the making of such regulations, so that I can say that under the Bill as it stands, they would be subject to annulment by Prayer.

I have been giving thought overnight to this point, and I am inclined to the view that these regulations will be of such considerable and widespread importance that there should be no question of their just slipping through with, perhaps, nobody noticing them and wishing to debate them by praying against them. I have it in mind to propose that we should amend the Bill so as specifically to ensure that the transitional grant regulations made under Clause 15 shall require an affirmative Order of the House and, therefore, whatever Government might bring them forward would know that they had to explain them to the House at the outset of the debate, and defend them at the end of it. If I have time, I will put down an Amendment for the Report stage of this Bill. If not, the Government will move an Amendment of that kind in another place.

I hope that what I have said will have convinced my hon. Friends that I am taking this matter very seriously, and that I am anxious to do all I can to ensure that justice is done. I do not believe that one could truly do justice simply by "freezing" the first year's transitional arrangements for a further period but, when the time comes, I shall certainly carry out everything that I have promised to do in my speech.

Mr. Mitchison

I do not propose to take up much of the time of the Committee, but I must say that it has been very amusing to sit here and to listen to the hon. Members opposite. They did not vote last time, and they will not vote this time, and their constituents will have watched, I hope, with a somewhat critical enthusiasm, what, at most, was a demonstration with a minimum of force and, at the least, was simply a political mannequin parade. Really it was very funny. I found it most amusing.

7.45 p.m.

I particularly liked their proposition that, because these seaside towns had a heavy rate burden per head they were entitled to some special relief, not at the expense of the Government but at that of the other local authorities, including, for instance, all the industrial areas like Barnsley or Barrow-in-Furness which have to carry a burden of services totally unknown to such places as Bournemouth and Brighton. They have a far more difficult job to do with far fewer resources.

Of course, the reason for the rateable value per head being higher in Bournemouth and Brighton is that, on the whole, they have better houses and more comfortable conditions. It relates simply to buildings. It may be that people there carry on their businesses unfortunately or foolishly and go bankrupt in larger numbers there than do people in other places, but that has nothing whatever to do with rating. Rating is simply a question of a uniform valuation of property.

It is not these people in Bournemouth, Brighton and the rest who really suffer the most. When, for a change, we look at the facts instead of some of the fiction that we have been hearing, we find, for instance, that the rate per head of the population in Blackpool, on the latest available figures, is £13 10s.—almost exactly the same as it is in West Ham. I daresay that all these people in Blackpool are desperately poor, but they do not look like it when we go there. I should have thought that they were better able to carry £13 10s. per head in rates than were the inhabitants of West Ham—against whom I have nothing, but they look to me, on the whole, a little worse off——

Sir R. Robinson

No doubt when the hon. and learned Gentleman goes to Blackpool he goes to his party conference and meets his colleagues, not my constituents.

Mr. Mitchison

But I go round Blackpool and I notice that they spend a great deal of money on the lights. I do not know where they get it from, but I am told that they do it because it pays them. I do not suppose that poor West Ham could do it if it tried, or that its buildings are so salubrious, or its tower so sightly as to attract the number of visitors who go to the seaside, and who, after all, at the end of the day, increase the wealth of Blackpool, Brighton and the other places.

It is really rather nonsense. I will tell hon. Members opposite where to look for a really high incidence of rates per head of population. They need not go further than the front door here. The amount per head is £13 10s. in Blackpool. What is it in the City of Westminster? It is £128 12s. Have hon. Members thought of that? It is, of course, the Metropolitan Boroughs that carry the high incidence of rates per head, and it is a wholly misleading guide as to where relief is needed and has precious little to do with it. On the whole, Holborn is not very well off, but there the figure is £96 4s. per head of the population.

I hope that next time hon. Members opposite come here with the remarkable proposition that they are very very poor at Blackpool and Brighton and Bournemouth and that those wealthy places like Barnsley and West Ham should rush to their aid, and pay more rates in order that they should pay less they will, first, find something better to say than they have said this time, and, secondly, when they have made out this very original case, they will, at least, have the courage to vote for it.

Sir T. Low

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has treated this Amendment and a previous Amendment rather too lightly, but, at least, he has amused himself if he has amused no one else. The fact is, I think, that he and many of his hon. Friends really consider that the present system of grants and rates leads to considerable injustice in a large number of places, and they really do feel that not only seaside resorts but other towns and places which have been mentioned are too well treated.

Mr. Mitchison

I have a very great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he would like me just to answer that. The thing which I regard as the worst in the Bill is that the relief by way of industrial rerating is not complete and is not given wholly to the local authorities. It is on that sort of question—not referring at the moment to the education point—where I believe the injustice is.

Sir T. Low

I am trying to compare the present position as we have it today, before the Bill comes into force, with the position as it will be. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite generally feel that the present situation is unjust to a large number of places and is over-just or over-kind to the sort of town referred to by those who have supported the Amendment. The Opposition would deliberately bring things about so that Blackpool, Bournemouth, Bath, Exeter, Eastbourne and a number of other places——

Dame Irene Ward

Whitley Bay.

Sir T. Low

—have to pay higher rates. They would do that as a deliberate act of policy.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil)

Who said so?

Mr. Mitchison

The right hon. Gentleman must distinguish between the people I was talking about, his hon. Friends who all spoke for seaside towns, and the people who would be affected by the Amendment. The two are rather different.

Sir T. Low

I think that I can make all those distinctions. That is generally the view of the party opposite. There is nothing to be ashamed of; if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it is right, they should say so. But I did not gather that that was the view of the Government.

Mr. Mitchison

I did not say so.

Sir T. Low

I gathered that the Government's view was that they had made this new general grant system, that it was rather sad and a pity that a number of people appeared to suffer from it, and that, although this damage had been done accidentally as a result of the new general grant system, there was nothing which could be done to put it right, with the one exception of the transitional arrangements set out in Clause 15 of the Bill as now drafted. It was said by my right hon. Friend just now that to prolong the 100 per cent. compensation for more than one year would take money away from gaining authorities, that is, deprive them of the full gain to which they might be said to be entitled when there was no compensation.

The Committee has forgotten, I think, that, even when 100 per cent. compensation is given to the losing authorities—and this is the circumstance we are considering here—most of the other authorities gain very substantially. That can be seen by looking at the last column but one in this hypothetical White Paper.

Mr. Mitchison

That hypothetical White Paper.

Sir T. Low

Just to take the authorities which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, does the Committee realise that, even with 100 per cent. compensation being given to the losing authorities, Barrow-in-Fumes gains 11d., quite a considerable gain? West Ham gains 2s. 2d. Kettering gains 4d. South Shields gains 6d.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Much overdue.

Sir T. Low

Liverpool gains 10d., as, no doubt, my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will know. Birmingham gains 10d. Acton gains 3d. Rochester and Chatham gain 4d. and 5d. respectively. When we talk about taking money from gaining authorities, we should be quite clear what we are talking about. We are leaving those gaining authorities with very substantial gains. I am sorry to take up time on the point, but I feel that all hon. Members were not aware of the facts during the course of our discussion.

Last night, on an earlier Amendment, my right hon. Friend said that he thought that these transitional provisions were generous. That is what he called them. On what basis does he describe them as generous? Generous in what way? All they do is to compensate a number of other authorities for money of which they have been deprived as compared with their present position. I do not want to quarrel with the language of my right hon. Friend's speech, which I thought was otherwise unexceptionable, but I really must quarrel with the use of the word "generous" in that context.

We have had the benefit of a very valuable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who gives a great deal of study to these matters. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister take up the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made about the way in which he might make further use of the formulae in the Bill to meet some of the points which have been made by my hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment and by others who have spoken on a number of occasions, but I did not gather from my right hon. Friend's reply that he saw any chance that, by making use of any of these formulae in that way, he could have us from a substantial loss. If I am wrong about that, perhaps he will get up and tell me so.

Mr. H. Brooke

My right hon. Friend asks me to get up and say something. The position is that the Government do not feel themselves bound by the hypothetical arithmetic—and the particular figures used in the 1957 White Paper—which I made available to the Committee. All those we shall certainly review so that the first general grant Order may be as just as possible to all concerned. But I say to my right hon. Friend that the large figures which have been quoted in the Committee about boroughs losing £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 really have no basis in fact, because amounts of that kind could not possibly be arrived at until all the transitional arrangements had come to an end, and, by that time, we shall have had the 1961 revaluation. We may have had boundary changes. Nobody can possibly foresee how the figures at that stage will work out. That is why I have maintained that, from 1961 onwards, the Government should reserve the power to bring forward further transitional regulations.

Sir T. Low

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, which is, of course, in line with the spirit in which he has approached this difficult problem throughout. But—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get on."] The hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) may think it right to say "Get on"——

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Not I.

Sir T. Low

—but this is what we on this side regard as a very serious problem for our constituents. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vote."] Perhaps it would be a good thing if, before we came to a decision on the Amendment, we decided what it was we were to come to a conclusion about. That is what I am trying to do, as quickly as I can, to bring the matter to a conclusion.

I still feel that my right hon. Friend cannot guarantee us against a substantial loss. Indeed, all that he has said seems to me to make more wise and appropriate the Amendment we are now discussing. It seems to me wise, and not stupid, if everything is so uncertain, to prolong the 100 per cent. stage of the transition arrangements. That is what the Amendment seeks to do. It seeks to prolong the 100 per cent. part of the transition arrangements from one year to two years, or such greater number of years than two as the Minister may decide by regulation. Everything that the Minister has said has made me come to the conclusion that that would be a wise course for the Committee to take.

8.0 p.m.

I know the difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman has found himself. But perhaps he will allow me to point out the difficulties in which my hon. Friends and I have found ourselves. In Committee and since a number of suggestions have been put to my right hon. Friend, none of which he has been able to accept. There were the Amendments proposed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), the Amendments which were proposed yesterday, and today's Amendment. I think that my right hon. Friend has the spirit of this Amendment in mind. There is a further possibility that he himself would put forward even a small point to try to protect us and our constituents from this extra rate that he proposes to impose.

I do not know whether I am more angry or more sad, but I must say to the Committee that I hope my hon. Friends will press this Amendment and, if necessary, vote for it.

Question put, That "first year" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Charles. Is it in order for the Patronage Secretary, whilst the vote is taking place, to go into the Division Lobby, where Members have gone to cast their vote, and get them out again? I was by the "No" Division Lobby and, with some of my hon. Friends, saw the Patronage Secretary forcibly try to get hon. Members from the Government side out of the Division Lobby. Is it in order to use physical pressure in that manner?

The Chairman

As far as order is concerned, I can deal only with things I can see. I cannot see into the Division Lobby, so I cannot answer the question.

The committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 13.

Division No. 111.] AYES [8.3 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Gough, C. F. H. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Aitken, W. T. Gower, H. R. Medlicott, Sir Frank
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Graham, Sir Fergus Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Alport, C. J. M. Grant, W. (Woodside) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Arbuthnot, John Green, A. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Armstrong, C. W. Grimond, J. Nabarro, G. D. N.
Atkins, H. E. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Nairn, D. L. S.
Baldwin, A. E. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Neave, Airey
Balniel, Lord Gurden, Harold Nicholls, Harmar
Barlow, Sir John Hall, John (Wycombe) Nugent, G. R. H.
Barter, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Beamish, Col. Tufton Harris, Reader (Heston) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Page, R. G.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Hay, John Partridge, E.
Bidgood, J. C. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Peel, W. J.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Peyton, J. W. W.
Bingham, R. M. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Body, R. F. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bonham Carter, Mark Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Powell, J. Enoch
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Holland-Martin, C. J. Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hope, Lord John Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hornby, R. P. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Ramsden, J. E.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Horobin, Sir Ian Rawlinson, Peter
Bryan, P. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Redmayne, M.
Burden, F. F. A. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Rippon, A. G. F.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Howard, John (Test) Robson Brown, Sir William
Carr, Robert Hurd, A. R. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cary, Sir Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.) Roper, Sir Harold
Chichester-Clark, R. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Russell, R. S.
Conant, Maj, Sir Roger Iremonger, T. L. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Cooke, Robert Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Sharples, R. C.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Corfield, Capt. F. V, Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Speir, R. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Joseph, Sir Keith Stevens, Geoffrey
Cunningham, Knox Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Currie, G. B. H. Kaberry, D. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Dance, J. C. G. Kimball, M. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Davidson, Viscountess Kirk, P. M. Studholme, Sir Henry
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery) Lambton, Viscount Summers, Sir Spencer
D[...]Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lancaster, Col. C. G. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Deedes, W. F. Leather, E. H. C. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Thornton-Kems[...]ey, Sir Colin
du Cann, E. D. L. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Linstead, Sir H. N. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Duncan, Sir James Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Duthie, W. S. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vickers, Miss Joan
Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn McAdden, S. J. Wade, D. W.
Errington, Sir Eric McKibbin, Alan Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Finlay, Graeme McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Wall, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) Webbe, Sir H.
Fort, R. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Freeth, Derzil Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Gammans, Lady Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
George, J. C. (Pollok) Maddan, Martin Woollam, John Victor
Glover, D. Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Glyn, Col. Richard H. Marshall, Douglas Mr. Brooman-White and
Godber, J. B. Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Mr. Gibson-Watt.
Mawby, R. L.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Mawby, R.L. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Garner-Evans, E. H. Pitman, I. J. Sir Roland Robinson and
Hesketh, R. F. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Mr. Cooper-Key.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Macdonald, Sir Peter Teeling, W.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.