HC Deb 07 May 1958 vol 587 cc1302-19
Mr. H. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, after "shall", to insert: be laid before the Commons House of Parliament together with a report by the Minister explaining the considerations leading to the provisions of the order and shall". Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we also discussed the Amendment in line 33. It seems to the Government that it would be appropriate that the general grant order, being essentially a financial instrument, should require the specific approval of this House alone, and the second of these Amendments secures that.

The first Amendment fulfils an undertaking I gave in Committee, when it was generally agreed that the general grant order would need an accompanying White Paper to explain the considerations which led up to it. I never had any doubt that a White Paper of that kind would be required, and at that stage I undertook to insert in the Bill the statutory requirement that such a report should be laid. Of course, it would be a matter of wide interest beyond the confines of this House, and it may be that in another place it would be desired to debate the White Paper, but that is another matter. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will consider that I have fulfilled my duty here.

Mr. Mitchison

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has kindly fulfilled his obligation in the matter, and we agree with what he proposes to do.

Mr. Ede

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting down this Amendment. I can only hope that he will shortly be made a life Peer so that his influence over the matter will, by this Amendment, be entirely removed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, leave out line 33 and insert "that House".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert: one year for the year 1959–60 and the next two succeeding years and thereafter of". The effect of the Amendment, if accepted, would be to limit the general grant orders, during the first three years, to one year at a time, and, after that, to accept the provision of the Bill that they should be for periods of not less than two years.

The Bill at present provides that they shall always be for not less than two years, and all we know about that is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the White Paper, and again, I think, verbally in Committee, that the first of the periods would be two years only. That is all we know at present. So far as the language of the Bill goes, there is nothing whatever to prevent the right hon. Gentleman, even if he carries out that undertaking for the first two years, from prescribing a period very much longer later on. That is as may be, and we endeavoured in Committee to limit the periods indefinitely for one year. We did not succeed in persuading the Government of the wisdom of that, and so this very modest Amendment provides only for what is really a trial period of three years.

I have never been able to understand the Government's objection to a provision of this sort, at any rate for the immediately following period. It is perfectly clear that this Bill involves numbers of estimates each of which must contain large elements of uncertainty, and I do not know that the case is made very much stronger by taking instance after instance it really is so very obvious. There will be changes in the requirements of each of these services, and those changes will have to be forecast at the time that the general grant order is made. Further, there will be all the other matters mentioned in Clause 2 of the Bill—the general economic conditions with regard to which the need for developing the services has to be weighed in relation to the amount of the general grants.

There will be minor matters. I could take the sort of instance that I have in mind—matters relating to, say, the sparsity factor and the operation of that very complicated provision; matters relating to the cost of things which are being begun, relating to questions of policy, how far it may be right in the fairly immediate future to develop one particular aspect of this, that or the other service.

It must be obvious to every hon. Member who has read the Bill or followed the discussions that we have had on it that it contains innumerable elements where forecasting ought to be limited to the minimum that is necessary. After all, we forecast our own national financial requirements year by year, and every year we introduce a Budget and a Finance Bill—indeed, we shall be doing so very shortly—which provides for the amount of services at a distance ahead. It is true that we have methods of adding to it, but then so has this Bill, for in the same Clause there are arrangements to deal with enforcing increases in certain fields, the level of prices, cost or remuneration. We endeavoured to enlarge that provision in Committee and were told that it was not necessary.

So we take the Bill as it is, and if the requirements of the national service can be forecast to the extent necessary to produce reliable estimates and to come to general conclusions of financial policy, I completely fail to see why something of the same sort is not possible within the much more limited field of local authority expenditure.

When we are coming to this general question we have to remember that one of the main reasons given for the general grant in this sort of connection was that the Treasury would know in advance what its arrangements were going to be. The objection taken by the Treasury or the Government, however one likes to put it, to the percentage grant was that too much depended on the initiative or the lack of initiative of local authorities. From that point of view, I very much doubt if the Treasury needs to know its commitments for local authority expenditure further ahead than it knows its commitments for national expenditure. I cannot follow the special case for enforcing a longer period of this particular type of service and type of expenditure.

7.45 p.m.

Now I come to the other side of the medal. The Bill recognises that that is not quite enough, and it recognises it in two ways—not only by the provision to meet enforcing circumstances to which I have referred, but by the very curious bit of machinery under which one may forecast for two years ahead and one will produce different totals for each year. I think these essays in a combination of higher mathematics and prophecy are very unfair on local authorities. I am no expert on prophecy. If I were, I should wonder how necessary it really was to interfere with these provisions, and whether other circumstances connected with the electorate may not make this type of Amendment not so important as at first sight it appears to be.

As I say, I am no expert on prophecy. All I know about it is this. It is, generally speaking, other things being equal, with all caution and all reservations, a bit easier to prophesy what will happen one year ahead than it is to prophesy what will happen two years ahead. The only thing which really bothers me about this type of Amendment is the attitude that the Government have consistently taken to every suggestion that has been made to them from any quarter of the Committee. They are so convinced of their complete and perfect infallibility that I feel sure that that conviction extends not merely to the present but to the future. They know not only everything that there is to be known now but everything that there is to be known about the future.

Those of us who are not equipped with the second sight that is apparently con-conferred on the appropriate Minister concerned with this Bill have merely to pause and wonder. Do they really wish to deny themselves the opportunity of making a second estimate at the end of one year? Why are they so certain that any estimate of that sort is unnecessary? If, in fact, the position is that somewhere in the collective bosom of the Government there lingers a little uncertainty about their insight into the future—none, of course, about their knowledge of the present—would they not hesitate, to be wise and prudent, just to allow for the possibility that, if not in the present, at least in the future they may be wrong, and therefore have their estimates for one year only?

I have put the general case and I want to take one or two particular instances. I am tempted by the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has a singularly sound understanding of the philosophy of these matters, I feel sure, to venture into the sphere of education. I should have thought that in that field, as with public health, changes are happening at present rather too rapidly to make a two-year forecast at all advisable—except, of course, for those who are infallible.

For them I can say nothing. For mere ordinary mortals, I should have thought that there were possibilities in the development of technical education, in the development of further education, and even, turning from the sublime to the really difficult, in the size of classes, which might take place quite rapidly. There are tempting possibilities that education in these various respects might get better, more varied, more suitable for the needs of the population and even, perhaps, some of the classes might get much smaller and there might be rather more teachers. I do not know about that; the Government, through their insight into the future, do; they see it all in advance.

What of public health? We were talking about mental health only the other day. There are the very serious recommendations of the Committee on this matter which suggested some comprehensive changes. There are also the services for the handicapped, which we were discussing very recently. Some day or other, perhaps, the Government may do something about the recommendations concerning the handicapped. If that day comes, if they are not too absorbed in contemplating their own infallibility, then the case for a shorter period of estimate becomes overwhelming.

It may be that the Government want a very long time because they are convinced that, when they say they will do something, they are quite certain that they will not do it within the next two years or more. However, short of some ridiculous reason of that kind—one would not wish one's criticism even of this Government to go to that length—I can see no ground whatever for refusing to shorten the period until they and the local authorities know where they are under this grant. After all, on any showing, it is an exceedingly sweeping change. It is a change very much for the worse, and of that we shall have more to say on the Bill as a whole. At any rate, no one will deny that it is very sweeping. Perhaps the most obvious point in respect of which it is very sweeping is that, for the first time in the history of this country, so far as I know, at any rate the first time in recent history, it is proposed to provide for educational needs by a block grant. That was not done on the last block grant arrangements, and they were thirty years ago.

If there is uncertainty about providing for these things, if one is trying out a new and sweeping formula like this, trying it in regard to something where, after all, one has no experience, then, unless one is quite infallible both as to present and as to future, it is right to give oneself a rather short trial period to begin with. Suppose the Government make mistakes about the amounts. Suppose they get the sums wrong. Will they use the rather limited powers in the Bill sufficiently to correct themselves?

Sometimes, of course, a really great Minister can get up and say, "I have been wrong", or a really great Minister, without saying it, can eat his words as we saw the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government do the other day in connection with the Rent Act. But every one of these things is likely to involve admission of error. Only the really great can make these admissions of error; a man has to be very great indeed not to be rather reluctant to make them. Contemplating the infallible hon. Gentlemen whom I see sitting opposite me, I hesitate for a moment in saying whether they have quite sufficient greatness or whether even their right hon. Friends have quite sufficient greatness to admit error as often as it may be necessary. I do not want to be rude to them in any way. It is quite obvious that we are dealing with great men; otherwise they could not be infallible. But will that greatness extend to admitting that they have been wrong? Governments hate doing that.

What will be the result if the Govenment make mistakes in these forecasts, if their insight into the future is not quite accurate? Let us have no bones about what the results will be. They will take it out of the "kids". They will take it out of the pupils in the education service. They will take it out of the old folk, for whom Part III assistance ought not to be provided and is not. They will take it out of the sick, for whom adequate health facilities ought to be provided by local authorities and are not in the case I am considering. They will take it ow of all the people in the country whom it is our duty in this House to look after. It is with the young, the very old, the feeble, the sick, those who suffer in the world, that this relevant expenditure and these services are principally concerned. Proud though we may be—I refer to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—of our own infallibility, need we be quite so certain of it as to put it at stake against the happiness and welfare of that type of person?

I urge the Government to be sensible in a matter like this, to drop for a moment some of their illusions about infallibility, some of their incredible obstinacy in refusing to accept any suggestion not their own, some of their certainty that not only their policy but the execution of it is always right. They should accept an Amendment which allows them shorter trial periods for the first three years. We will look after it after that, not before.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to explain, first, that the reason I was late coming into the Chamber is that I am serving on a Committee upstairs which, unfortunately, is sitting at the same time as the debate is in progress here. It is not lack of courtesy on my part which makes me come in late and then take part in the debate.

I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has given to the Government a chance to protect themselves from the worst effects we fear from this Measure. One of the weaknesses of the Bill, in our judgment, is that it is so rigid, and that, even if the Minister himself has second thoughts, he will not be able to undo the damage that it is likely to inflict. When we think of the wide range of local government services which will be affected by this Measure, we realise at once how impossible it is for the wisest local administrators to forecast their expenditure two or, perhaps, even more years ahead, as time goes on.

At least during the early years, it would be wise to allow administrators who will be unused to this operation to forecast a year at a time. Every hon. Member will know how difficult it is for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to forecast more than a year ahead. Indeed, he is unable to forecast their estimates a year ahead. It is common for a Chancellor to find that he has £400 million more than he budgeted for, or £200 million less than he budgeted for, or, indeed, to have two Budgets in one year.

8.0 p.m.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering played with the word "fallibility". I have been in the House long enough to know that the Estimates of Departments are only worth having for the week in which they are made. After that they take their place as a peg on which we hang discussion, and that is about all. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministries of Housing and Local Government and Education know well enough that there is nothing constant in the expenditure of local education authorities. Crises arise from time to time and it is wise that local authorities shall not feel "cabined, cribbed, confined" and cannot experiment in, say, a second year, because the forecast of their expenditure, which has been made far ahead, prevents change even in the set-up of the education service within the confines of their authority. Cardiff is about to embark on experiments with comprehensive schools. It proposes to keep secondary grammar schools, but to reach out to the outer parts of the city, we hope—if the elections go right tomorrow—to have comprehensive schools as well.

Sir E. Boyle

For goodness' sake, let us get Newport settled, which may have to be done before long, before we get on to Cardiff.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. Gentleman has his own troubles, but I am concerned only with Cardiff.

If a local authority like Cardiff suddenly wanted to be progressive in educational matters, it would find it exceedingly difficult if the following year's Estimates had been decided two years before. Clearly, power is being taken away from the local authorities in whom the Government pretend to have such great confidence. To tie the hands of local administrators too far ahead is to rob them of the initiative to which they are entitled.

The same may well be said of the other services which will be affected by this grant, such as the children's services. Anyone who has served on a local authority will know that constant developments are taking place in children's services. The Minister is merely putting the brake on these authorities if he will not say that for each year of the first three years he will reconsider the estimate of grant that they require.

This is a reasonable and modest Amendment. It does not ask that the grant should be yearly for good. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I hope that he will be in the same accommodating mood as he appeared to be on the last Amendment, in which he wanted to give us what we thought was good for us, but, unfortunately, had to make us wait until tomorrow to receive it. I hope that he will realise that local authorities in general are as much perturbed about the block grant proposal as anything, because it will not be possible to revise it annually. It is difficult enough for them to administer now that they have to make their estimates a year ahead. They are often a long way out in their calculations and the rates have to fluctuate greatly.

The Minister is bound to be aware of this. The fluctuations in rates will be more severe and the burden of authorities will be magnified if the Minister sticks obstinately to a two-year period. I earnestly hope that we shall find him more reasonable on this modest, but none the less important, proposal.

Sir E. Boyle

The debate on this Amendment has been very entertaining. I do not think I have ever claimed infallability for myself, but I am surprised to find the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), arguing in unison and in succession that medium term economic planning is bunk. That is not the view I entirely hold myself.

Mr. Mitchison

Neither do I, and nor did I say so.

Sir E. Boyle

The hon. and learned Gentleman came very near to saying so. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that since we have annual Finance Bills and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that since the estimates of expenditure and revenue by the Government can be very seriously out, we should have annual general grants. But granted that we have annual Finance Bills and that we sometimes have them more often, it should still be noticed that only as recently as last September my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer quite deliberately told public bodies exactly what funds they would have for investment purposes for two years ahead. As a matter of fact, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, now that we have a public sector of about £1,500 million worth of investment a year, frequently one finds departments in which projects and plans go as far forward as four or five years.

On that basis, I do not think there is anything unnatural in the argument that it is cardinal to a general grant principle that there should be certainty for a period of two years. Indeed, I should have thought that it would have been much more difficult for local authorities to plan the orderly development of their services if they know for only a year at a time precisely what grant they are to get. I should be very surprised, whatever view local education authorities hold of the general grant proposals—and I will not go into that controversial matter—if there would be a majority of local education authorities in favour of the Amendment.

The White Paper on Local Government finance made plain that the first grant period would be two years. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite well that the reason for choosing two years in the first instance was a very simple one, namely, that there would have to be a stock-taking when the effects of the 1961 revaluation could be assessed. We must leave what happens after 1961 to be judged when the circumstances are known. But I have no doubt that it certainly will be possible to provide on a sound basis for at least two years in the period following that.

The hon. and learned Gentleman put forward one other argument on which I should like to comment. He said that so much can happen in two years. He said that it is possible to have very rapid developments in further education, in technical colleges and in the sizes of classes. But is that really a realistic outlook? I should have thought that unforeseen need for costly development of education services could not possibly arise overnight.

So far as further education and technical coleges are concerned, surely it is clear that the rate of expansion depends largely on the rate of new building. We have been able substantially to step up the rate of new building for technical colleges, but obviously it would not be realistic to suppose that there would be rapid expansion of services inside the technical colleges at a faster rate than the provision of new buildings and new equipment.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes (Anglesey)

Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the possible effect of the new Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill, which the Government have presented and which, according to the Government, will bring substantial new industries into certain areas?

Sir E. Boyle

I entirely agree that there can be rapid industrial developments in any area; that is true. I am merely saying that I do not see how the work done in colleges of further education can expand much faster than the provision of new buildings themselves.

As for the schools, surely the broad pattern of demand and the factors affecting that pattern are fairly readily predictable. We know what the population will be in two or three years' time. We know approximately what the age distribution of the school population will be. We know, also, what the supply of teachers will be. I see that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has returned to his place. It would not be appropriate now to get back to a subect that we have often debated, but as far as all those factors are concerned there cannot be any rapid and unforeseen developments over two years.

As I see it, there is only one single factor which could completely throw out all the calculations of general grant, and that is a new major Burnham award affecting the great mass of the teaching profession. Both my right hon. Friend and I have said on more than one occasion that we fully recognise that that would justify a renegotiation of the general grant. I am extremely sorry that a misprint in the very first HANSARD of the Standing Committee should have caused a little confusion on that matter.

I do not think that a sufficient case has been made for the Amendment. The arguments which I have put forward show quite clearly that it is reasonable that the first period of the general grant should take us down to 1961, the year of the next revaluation, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede

There was one curious phrase that the Parliamentary Secretary used that I was hoping he would elaborate. He said that he did not think that the local authorities themselves would welcome the passing of the Amendment. I am still associated with a large number of representatives of local authorities who have considered this matter. Anxious as they were not to do anything to embarrass the Government, the one thing on which they were determined was that this was so novel a proposal for them to have to administer that for the first two years at least it ought to be an annual calculation.

If the hon. Gentleman could have claimed that those people supported him, he would have said so. I assure him that if there is one thing of which they are certain, it is that for the first two years to be put into one block is a mistake and that the first two years certainly ought to be calculated separately.

After all, they do not know—I doubt whether even the Parliamentary Secretary knows yet—what all these things to be prescribed are to be. All we know is that we have had some hypothetical figures which produced such a state of alarm and despondency on the benches behind the hon. Gentleman that 13—a significant number—of his own supporters went into the Lobby last night against the Government.

Sir E. Boyle

That is not quite accurate. Twelve of them were hon. Friends of mine, but the thirteenth was a member of the party opposite.

Mr. Ede

Obviously, he realised the importance of having an appropriate number. That does not affect the validity of my argument.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to believe that this matter is regarded with the gravest anxiety by the local authorities, not merely local education authoritties, but local authorities generally, including those who, in addition to being local education authorities, have a great many other duties to discharge. I hope that at some time the Government will say something to enable them to be reassured about the possible effect of too great a rigidity during the first two years of the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Tudor Watkins (Brecon and Radnor)

I wish to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said about having annual calculations, particularly in the immediate future. We in mid-Wales have not been as fortunate as some education authorities concerning capital expenditure for school building. If the Ministry calculates on a two-year basis, and includes nothing for school building for the first year, there will be no hope of getting anything for the second year.

Therefore, it is essential for us to have the Minister on our side if we are to have any school building to complete the programme of rural reorganisation which has been temporarily stopped.

For that reason, it is important to examine the calculations year by year in case the Minister has a good turn of mind, so that he may allow greater expenditure for the school building which is required in some of the places in which his circular has brought about a temporary stoppage.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the position, particularly as it affects some of the places which I represent, where the education rate is enormous. The grant should be on an annual basis. No matter how good our local education committees may be at planning, they would like to be able to view the position from a yearly standpoint.

Mr. Mitchison

May I have the leave of the House to reply, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I do not take too long in doing so? I find myself very impatient with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I tried to pay him as many compliments as I could about his infallibility, his insight into the present, his sure knowledge of the future and all the rest. I did not really expect it to work, but what I did hope was that we should have a reasonable argument in reply. All we had was this: "We plan ahead. We are such a wise Government that we sometimes look beyond the present year, and for that reason we must have a two-year period over which to estimate the general grant." Surely, the two things are entirely different.

When the Government come to their economic considerations at the season of the Budget, or at any other time, of course they are bound to look ahead for more than one year. In the educational programme and the working of all the services with which they are concerned, certainly they are bound to look ahead. That does not, however, prevent them nationally making their Budget provision

for one year ahead. Why should it prevent them making a similar provision in the case of the services of local authorities for one year and one year only?

The case for doing it in this instance is far stronger, because what the Government are doing is an experiment. It involves countless, obvious uncertainties, things that no one can foretell with any surety. All that the Government are leaving themselves in the Bill by way of loophole if they make a mistake is simply that they can look at the general level of prices, costs and salaries, and that is all.

Surely, there are other things. Apart from whether the Minister will be prepared to say that he made a mistake and whether he will be prepared to stand up and say, "As a result of the policy of this Government, we have had serious industrial trouble, a sterling crisis and a sharp rise in prices and, therefore, we have to recast our Estimate", there will be countless instances where the Government ought to vary their expenditure from year to year and not commit themselves to an expenditure of at least two years ahead.

It is unreasonable and obviously wrong, and I can only ascribe the refusal to listen to this kind of argument in any form whatever—the refusal to meet it, not even to the whole extent of the Amendment but at all, the adherence to what is in the Bill and to nothing but what is in the Bill—to the incredible obstinacy that seems to afflict decaying Governments and their members. They just will not listen to reason, and in this instance they are refusing to listen to reason at the expense of the local authorities, and, above all, at the expense of those people to whom these services are directed—the old, the sick, the young—all those whom we ought to help. I regard this as a most mischievous refusal to see sense or to admit that on this small point they have gone too far.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 208.

Division No. 117.] AYES [8.20 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Awbery, S. S. Benson, Sir George
Albu, A. H. Bacon, Miss Alice Boardman, H.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Balfour, A. Bonham Carter, Mark
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bence. C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pentland, N.
Bowles, F. G. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Popplewell, E.
Boyd, T. C. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Prentice, R. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Burton, Miss F. E. Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn&St.Pncs,S.) Probert, A. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Proctor, W. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, James (Rugby) Pryde, D. J.
Champion, A. J. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Greech(Wakefield) Randall, H. E.
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Rankin, John
Clunie, J. Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Redhead, E. C.
Coldrick, W. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Reeves, J.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Rhodes, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Cove, W. G. Kenyon, C. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Craddock, George (Bradford. S.) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Cullen, Mrs. A. King, Dr. H. M. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lawson, G. M. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Ledger, R. J. Ross, William
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Short, E. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Diamond, John Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Logan, D. G. Snow, J. W.
Edelman, M. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sparks, J. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) McAlister, Mrs. Mary Steele, T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacColl, J. E. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) McGhee, H. G. Stones, W. (Consett)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) McKay, John (Wallsend) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Fernyhough, E. McLeavy, Frank Swingler, S. T.
Finch, H. J. Mahon, Simon Sylvester, G. O.
Fletcher, Eric Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Forman, J. C. Mann, Mrs. Jean Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mason, Roy Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Gibson, C. W. Mikardo, Ian Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mitchison, G. R. Timmons, J.
Greenwood, Anthony Moody, A. S. Tomney, F.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Grey, C. F. Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) V[...]iant, S. P.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mort, D. L. Wade, D. W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Moyle, A. Watkins, T. E.
Grimond, J. Mulley, F. W. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hamilton, W. W. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) West, D. G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wheeldon, W. E.
Hastings, S. Oliver, G. H. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Hayman, F. H. Oram, A. E. Willey, Frederick
Herbison, Miss M. Orbach, M. Williams, David (Neath)
Hewitson, Capt. M. Owen, W. J. Williams, Rev. Llywclyn (Ab'tillery)
Holman, P. Padley, W. E. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Holt, A. F. Paget, R. T. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Houghton, Douglas Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Winterbottom, Richard
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Palmer, A. M. F. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Woof, R. E.
Hoy, J. H. Pargiter, G. A. Zilliacus, K.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Parkin, B. T.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hunter, A. E. Peart, T. F. Mr. Deer and Mr. Simmons.
Agnew, Sir Peter Boyle, Sir Edward Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Aitken, W. T. Bralne, B. R. Duncan, Sir James
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Alport, C. J. M. Brooman-White, R. C. Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Arbuthnot, John Bryan, P. Errington, Sir Eric
Armstrong, C. W. Butcher, Sir Herbert Farey-Jones, F. W.
Atkins, H. E. Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Fisher, Nigel
Baldwin, A. E. Carr, Robert Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Balniel, Lord Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Freeth, Denzil
Barter, John Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Gammans, Lady
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Cooke, Robert Garner-Evans, E. H.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. George, J. C. (Pollok)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Corfield, Capt. F. V. Gibson-Watt, D.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Bidgood, J. C. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Godber, J. B.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Gough, C. F. H.
Bingham, R. M. Cunningham, Knox Gower, H. R.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Dance, J. C. G. Graham, Sir Fergus
Bishop, F. P. Davidson, Viscountess Grant, W. (Woodside)
Black, C. W. Deedes, W. F. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Body, R. F. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Green, A.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Drayson, G. B. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. du Cann, E. D. L. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe) Linstead, Sir H. N. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Llewellyn, D. T. Robson Brown, Sir William
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vare (Macclesf'd) Longden, Gilbert Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Sharples, R. C.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Shepherd, William
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James McAdden, S. J. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Macdonald, Sir Peter Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Speir, R. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Stevens, Geoffrey
Holland-Martin, C. J. McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Hope, Lord John MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hornby, R. P. Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) Storey, S.
Horobin, Sir Ian Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Studholme, Sir Henry
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Summers, Sir Spencer
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Maddan, Martin Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Howard, Hon. Graville (St. Ives) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Taylor, Sir Charies (Eastbourne)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Marshall, Douglas Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Mathew, R. Teeling, W.
Hurd, A. R. Mawby, R. L. Temple, John M.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Hyde, Montgomery Nabarro, G. D. N. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Iremonger, T. L. Nairn, D. L. S. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Nugent, G. R. H. Vane, W. M. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Oakshott, H. D. Vickers, Miss Joan
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Osborne, C. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Keegan, D. Page, R. G. Wall, Patrick
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Partridge, E. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Peel, W. J. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Kershaw, J. A. Peyton, J. W. W. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Kimball, M. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Kirk, P. M. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Lagden, G. W. Pitman, I. J. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Powell, J. Enoch Wood, Hon. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A. Price, David (Eastleigh) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Leavey, J. A. Ramsden, J. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Rawlinson, Peter TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Redmayne, M. Mr. Finlay and
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Renton, D. L. M. Mr. Chichester-Clark.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Ridsdale, J. E.