HC Deb 24 March 1959 vol 602 cc1223-37
Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, in page 29, line 15, at the end to insert: (a) land shall not be sold or let for a term exceeding ninety-nine years except to an authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies or with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which may be given generally as regards land sold at a price not exceeding one hundred pounds or let at a rent not exceeding five pounds and otherwise may be given specially. I am glad that it has been possible for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to see your way to call this Amendment, because it has the one unusual characteristic that everybody can understand it. It will be the one point in the Bill where it will be possible for everybody to see the meaning.

Clause 22 is one of a series of Clauses which we very much welcome on this side of the House and which is designed to give local authorities freedom of action without having to come to the Ministry for permission to buy and sell land, and so on. In general, we entirely agree that this is a right step, and we welcome the Clauses.

One of the proposals in the Clause deals with the question of alienating land which is already in the possession of the local authority. Although we accept the general principle, it is never wise just because one accepts a general principle to assume that it covers every case, and we think that this problem of sales of freehold and long leases is one which requires looking into rather more carefully.

The history of the matter, which is one to which the right hon. Gentleman drew our attention in the Standing Committee, is that the Uthwatt Committee said that once any interest in land has passed into public ownership it should be disposed of by way of lease only and not by way of sale and the authority should have the power to impose such covenants in the lease as planning requirements make desirable, a breach of such covenants to be enforceable by re-entry.

As a result of the Report of the Uthwatt Committee—I have no doubt there was a strong motive in the House at the time—the Eleventh Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act provided that the consent of the Minister would be required for any disposal or appropriation of land under the relevant Section, and paragraph 19 (5) went on: The consent of the Minister to a sale by a local authority under this section of the freehold in any land, or to a lease by them thereunder of any land for a term of more than ninety-nine years, shall not be given unless he is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which render the disposal of the land in that manner expedient as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section. That is the law as it is at present. There is a similar requirement in the New Towns Act dealing with new town corporations. The result of it is that it is not only a question of local authorities having to apply to the Minister for consent to sell freeholds or to make long leases, but the Minister may not give his consent unless there are very special reasons for doing it. Therefore, it is going a very long way indeed from that care in husbanding freeholds for the situation to arise in which no consent at all is required and the local authority is completely free to alienate land if it wants to.

When we were discussing this matter in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was no longer necessary to have this careful control because of the actual working of the 1947 Act. Referring to the Uthwatt Committee recommendations, he said: That was before the present system of planning control was introduced under the 1947 Act and control of the sort with which we are concerned has been largely removed by the very complete system of control which has followed from the 1947 Act. I sometimes wonder if hon. Members opposite ever reflect on how effective their Act has been over controlled land use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 3rd March, 1959; c. 1054–5.] That is a very great compliment to the 1947 Act and its architects, but I felt a little aggrieved with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he realised that he was completely destroying the case for the preservation of the leasehold system. I speak as one of the members of the Labour Party who has fought a rearguard action to some extent against leasehold enfranchisement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) must be a very jubilant man because he has found a powerful ally in the Minister.

8.15 p.m.

One of the great arguments which has always been used against leasehold enfranchisement is the fact that leasehold control enables a landlord having an interest in a whole area to lay it out and plan it and see that communal amenities are preserved by enforcing covenants. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not necessary. I think he is probably wrong. From what I have seen of attempts to enforce the Town and Country Planning Act, I should not think that it was the precise and swift machine that he suggests. I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, however pleased he may be with this new ally, would agree, as an old and experienced member of the London County Council, that it is not very easy to enforce a town planning condition. We have only to look at the problem of the use of land in London for clubs, which defies all efforts at adequate planning control.

One of the important reasons why local authorities should hesitate very much before they sell freehold is that they have control over a wide area of land, and they should not split it up into the hands of a number of small freeholders.

The next important point is that anyone who has ever been a trustee of a charitable trust and has had to argue the point with the Charity Commission knows that land is an appreciating thing, that it is something in which one can to some extent ensure against changes in the value of money, and that there is always a tremendous reluctance to allow charities to sell land in which they have their assets invested

The same kind of principle arises in the case of a local authority. A local authority faced with the prospect of selling land may find itself confronted with a choice between the advantage of the moment and the long-term disadvantages of losing a valuable asset. It may well be that there is a temptation for a council which is not very prudent and farsighted to give in to pressure from speculators and property developers who want to get hold of the freehold and say to the local authority, "We will not do this work unless you are prepared to give us the freehold." That is a very facile argument often used by developers, and the temptation may be for the local authority, with the greatest good will, to slip into getting rid of a valuable asset which it would he wiser to hold. It is not just a question of the district valuer fixing the full market price. He does that as well as he can; but he cannot judge the political, geographical and town planning factors which enter into the decision as to whether it is wise to hold on to one's real property or to get rid of it.

This is an extraordinary change of front. Previously, we have had very strict control under which the Minister could not even exercise his discretion to give permission. Now there is to be complete freedom for local authorities, without taking the advice of the Minister, to alienate valuable assets. I should think that is unwise.

Another point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there was a good deal of difference between, on the one hand, a large holding of land and, on the other hand, small pieces of land left behind as a result of the completion of some operation, which should, in the general interest, be sold off, cases in which it was foolish to ask a large local authority to ask for permission, which would create red tape and delay.

In this Amendment we have endeavoured to meet that point, for what we say is that the land shall not be sold or let for a term exceeding ninety-nine years except to an authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies"— which means a more or less public authority— or with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which may be given generally as regards land sold at a price not exceeding one hundred pounds or let at a rent not exceeding five pounds". In other words, it would be possible under the Amendment for the Minister to give a general approval for the sale of small parcels of land, but there would still remain for him a duty with respect to the larger parcels of land because his consent must be given specially if they are to be sold.

It does not seem to me that this is an unreasonable thing to ask. After all, the right hon. Gentleman, I myself and even my hon. and learned Friend are frail human beings, and before long we go to our last account. On the other hand, the local authority goes on for a long period; its assets remain with it; the trust to the people remains. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that we should try to preserve the assets of local authorities. We have had at times in our discussions of the Bill to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being rather drunk wih power. I am pleading with him this time to take a wider view and to see himself in the context of history and to realise that the decision he is taking now may have results quite a long time ahead.

I am always pleading with the right hon. Gentleman just occasionally to make a concession. I put it to him, would it not be perfectly reasonable to say, when dealing with something as vital and fundamental as the sale of freeholds, or long leases of over 99 years, to keep the requirement of the permission of the Minister, and to abandon it only in the case of the smaller pieces of land or m the case of shorter leases? If only the right hon. Gentleman would do that it would, at any rate, ensure not an absolute prohibition, of course, on sale, but that there would be a period for reflection.

It would be necessary for the local authority, if it decided to take this important step, to go to the Minister for permission, and that would give a little time for reflection of what it was doing and would enable the Minister, even if he were not to refuse his consent, to say, "Have you considered this and that?" and give the local authority an opportunity to deliberate on the full significance of what it was doing. I should have thought this just the kind of gentle, fatherly supervision, which is not dictatorship, which the right hon. Gentleman ought to keep.

It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman who talks about the obduracy of local authorities and how they have to be made to do this, that and the other on a matter like this is so tender towards their susceptibilities. I would suggest that it is not unreasonable to ask him to accept this Amendment, which he may not like altogether, but which is a reasonable compromise and which would enable the matter to be looked at a bit longer, before we make such a drastic change in what has been the law of the land now for twelve years, if not more.

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said that the trust to the people remains. However, trust in the people does not seem to be a characteristic of the Opposition, if they support this Amendment, because this shows a clear distrust of the elected local authorities. The hon. Member said, further, that I might not like the Amendment very much, though he hoped that I would accept it. I can assure him that the local authorities would dislike it even more than I do.

When we as a Government—and, I hope, as a Parliament—are seeking to entrust a greater degree of responsibility to the local authorities, it would seem strange now, by this Amendment, to withdraw from them a power which in the Government's view they ought to have and which they have been allowed to look forward to by the provisions of this Bill.

I outlined the case against this Amendment in Standing Committee. It is quite clear that the hon. Member read what I said. Indeed, he was there at the time. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he has certainly read what I said, and the overwhelmingly cogent argument which I adduced on that occasion. This Amendment is slightly different from the one we discussed in Standing Committee, because this is what I might call a de minimis provision which is designed to let out certain small transactions—though I must advise the hon. Member that, judging by experience, the limits would have to be put considerably higher than they stand in the Amendment if they were to carry out what I presume is their intention, namely, not to catch small pieces of land which are surplus to requirements.

However, the main question before the House is to what extent local authorities can be trusted to reach a decision relating to the disposal or long leasing of land which they have acquired by agreement. There is no question about it that a local authority cannot acquire land compulsorily and then sell it off under this Clause as it stands. The normal case here is the land which has been acquired by agreement. There are certain categories of land which are excluded from the Clause, land which has been bought compulsorily, as I said, and land which it is proposed to dispose of at less than the best price obtainable.

Perhaps I may say, in passing, that the relaxations which are embodied in the Clause have been agreed with the local authority associations, and the Clause is drafted on the basis that ministerial control should be retained only where it can really be justified. Frankly, this Amendment extends a grandmotherly control to transactions where, in the view of the Government as well as of the local authority associations, there is no reason to fear that the local authorities would act irresponsibly.

8.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for Widnes quoted paragraph 147 of the Uthwatt Committee Report. He mentioned that I had demolished in Committee the case arising out of that paragraph, but, as he referred to it, perhaps I should explain the position again. That passage in the Uthwatt Committee Report was written long before the 1947 Act was passed. It was written because it was believed—and, maybe, rightly believed—at that time during the war that control by the terms of a leasehold disposal was the most satisfactory way of ensuring the proper use of land. The need for control by a public authority through such methods as that has very largely been removed by the complete system of planning which the 1947 Act has brought into use. I venture to say again, even if it upsets the argument of hon. Members, that the Opposition seems sometimes to be unaware of 'how effective the 1947 Act has been in controlling the use of land.

I also said, in reply to the Amendment in Committee, that my Department's estate officers have considerable experience in these matters, experience gained particularly with the redevelopment of war damaged central areas since the war. That, I know, was one of the methods very much in the minds of the Uthwatt Committee. All this experience indicates that it depends on the circumstances of the case whether leasehold or freehold disposal is more advantageous.

It is the considered view of the Government—we have not reached this conclusion lightly —that in any particular case, the choice whether disposal should be made by way of lease or by way of sale should be left to the local authority concerned so long as that local authority is fully apprised of the respective advantages of the two systems. Perhaps I might repeat in the House what I said in Standing Committee, that I have in mind the issue of a circular to local authorities when the Bill is through, giving them such guidance as can be gathered together on the basis of all the experience that they and my Department have had since the war.

Frankly, it comes to this. Do we still think it right that ministerial control should be retained over a wide range of local authority transactions which would be caught by this Amendment, but would be released by the Clause as it stands? I am glad to say that in the Standing Committee, which had a similar Amendment before it, the matter was not pressed to a Division. I believe that it was because there was a desire to raise the matter again on the Floor of the House on Report, so I am not making anything of that point, but we have argued this matter out twice now, and the Government stand firmly to their view that local authorities are responsible bodies in the sense that it should be left to them to reach their own decision, without ministerial intervention, on the classes of case defined in this Clause.

Mr. Mitchison

I am not altogether surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not read his own Bill. It is both dull and long. I am rather more surprised that he has not read his own speeches in Committee, which were not so long.

The figure of £100 comes from the right hon. Gentleman's own comment. He raised two objections to the Amendment we then put forward. One of them was on the question of small plots of land. This is what he said in one of those sentences which always attract my admiration: With the small plot it seems out of keeping with the modern conception of the responsibilities of local authorities that they should have to seek Ministerial consent before selling a small plot for, say, £20 or £50, or something of that sort, before granting a lease of that Iand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 3rd March, 1959; c. 1054.] However expressed, that point seemed to me to have some substance, and it was solely to meet it, as I said at the time, that the Amendment was withdrawn.

We then put in an Amendment, thinking that for once the right hon. Gentleman might not have overstated the matter, and put it up to £100. More than that, we put in another Amendment to provide that the right hon. Gentleman could alter it. If he is not content with that, I do not know what he is content with on that point. He has clearly forgotten his own speech in Committee. I do not blame him for forgetting the reason why I withdrew the Amendment. There is no particular reason why he should pay the attention to my speeches which I reverentially pay to every word which drops from his Ministerial lips. It may be due to the fact that we were told the other day that Ministers never make mistakes but the Opposition may.

What I complain about is that we had a bit more of this stuff about Tory freedom. I am getting rather tired of Tory freedom, but I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten his own Bill. What we begin with is to remove the need for Ministerial consent. Then we go on to certain exceptions. The third of those exceptions is: land shall not, except with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, be sold, exchanged or let for a price, consideration or rent less than the best price, best consideration or best rent (as the case may be) that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to any restrictions or conditions subject to which it is sold, exchanged or let: Therefore, Tory freedom does not apply to the price. It applies only to the questions whether one can sell.

Exactly what the political philosophy is that says that one can trust local authorities to sell or let land which they have acquired, but one cannot trust them to do it at anything other than the highest price and for that purpose Ministerial consent must be obtained, completely passes my understanding. If there is anything in the plea that we should trust local authorities, sub-paragraph (c) ought to be out of the Bill and ought never to have been in it. On the other hand, if there is anything in what we are putting forward there still remains the question whether sub-paragraph (c) is necessary.

Local authorities, so far as I know, have never had any very great grievance. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us that they have any great grievance. Moreover, I wonder whether he has considered the effect of the second of the two Amendments which we are now discussing. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to raise the figure of £100, if he likes, to £1,000, £5,000, £10,000 or £50,000, and to make a corresponding increase in the figure relating to long leases. He can do that. When he does it, he will be answerable to questions in Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman said that local authorities were elected. We have been telling him so all along. We had to remind him of that in connection with new towns. We shall probably have to do it in connection with many other matters. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that he, too, is elected and answerable to Parliament?

We think that the disposal of land, certainly on any large scale, has been the subject of Ministerial consent because it is recognised as involving questions that go beyond the ordinary scope of a local authority's dealings, and especially so in relation to sizeable pieces of land.

There has been no great hardship. The right hon. Gentleman told us with pride that his Departmental officers knew all about it and had given most valuable advice in connection with sales of this sort and other matters relating to land. It is a very remarkable proposition that a Government which insist on controlling local authorities in relation to the price of the sale should then say that they absolutely decline to control them in the fact of the sale and that, provided that it is the higher price, local authorities can sell £1 million worth of land without any leave from the Government.

On the other hand, if it is the wrong price even the £20 or £50 plots of land about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in Committee are subject to Ministerial control. If, instead of the £20, all that they are to receive is £19 19s. 11½d., the right hon. Gentleman's consent is required. It is a fantastic line to draw. In face of what was said by the Uthwatt Committee and in face of the considerations which have moved this legislation for a long time, I must decline to accept the kind of argument advanced today.

There is another side to it. It may be that local authorities sometimes do and

sometimes do not require formal consent from the Minister to buy land. In the case of a compulsory acquisition, I think that it is right to say that they always, or at any rate almost always, do. Even in cases of purchases by agreement, those purchases are specifically described in the statutes relating to the functions of local authority. They can be made only for certain purposes and within certain limits, and above all there is the financial check that the Ministry still exercises on the activities of local authorities.

I do not say that it is wrong, but it is true to say that whether by that financial check or by statutory provisions relating to compulsory purchases local authorities are very considerably controlled in the buying of land, and are further controlled in the price at which they sell land. It is only on the "aye" or "no" of the sale itself that the right hon. Gentleman feels that Tory freedom is involved. It is a distinction that I do not appreciate. I do not know his reason for this change, and he has not told us, except in such general terms as to be wholly inapplicable to the case we have to consider having regard to the other provisions of the Bill.

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

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 211.

Division No. 76.] AYES [8.40 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Janner, B.
Awbery, S. S. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Johnson, James (Rugby)
Bacon, Miss Alice Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Blackburn, F. Fernyhough, E. Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Blenkinsop, A. Fletcher, Eric Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Boardman, H. Foot, D. M. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Forman, J. C. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Brockway, A. F. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) King, Dr. H. M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Greenwood, Anthony Lawson, G. M.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Burton, Miss F. E. Grey, C. F. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hale, Leslie Logan, D. G.
Carmichael, J. Hamilton, W. W. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hannan, W. McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Champion, A. J. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) MacCann, J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hastings, S. MacColl, J. E.
Coldrick, W. Hayman, F. H. Mclnnes, J.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) McKay, John (Wallsend)
Hcrbison. Miss M. McLeavy, Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Holman, P. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Cronin, J. D. Holmes, Horace Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. A. Houghton, Douglas Mann, Mrs. Jean
Davies, Harold (Leek) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Howell, Denis (All Saints) Mason, Roy
Deer, G. Hoy, J. H. Mitchison, G. R.
Diamond, John Hunter, A. E. Moody, A. S.
Dugdale, Bt. Hn. John (W. Brmwich) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Morris, Percy (Swansea W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon, J. C. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm.S.)
Edelman, M. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Mort, D. L.
Moss, R. Reynolds, G. W. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Moyle, A. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Neal, Harold (Botsover) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Timmons, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Tomney, F.
Oliver, G. H. Ross, William Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Oswald, T. Royle, C. Viant, S. P.
Owen, W. J. Short, E. W. Warbey, W. N.
Padley, W. E. Silverman, Julius (Aston) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Palmer, A. M. F. Skeffington, A. M. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds W.) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) Wheeldon, W. E.
Parker, J. Slater, J. (Sedgefield) Wilkins, W. A.
Paton, John Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Williams, David (Neath)
Pentland, N. Snow, J. W. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Plummer, Sir Leslie Sorensen, R. W. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Prentice, R. E. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Sparks, J. A. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Spriggs, Leslie Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Probert, A. R. Steele, T. Winterbottom, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. H. Stonehouse, John Woof, R. E.
Randall, H. E. Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.) Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Redhead, E. C. Sylvester, G. O. Zilliacus, K.
Reeves, J. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Reid, William Taylor, John (West Lothian) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Finlay, Graeme Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Aitken, W. T. Fisher, Nigel McAdden, S. J.
Alport, C. J. M. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Macdonald, Sir Peter
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Freeth, Denzil McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Gammans, Lady Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Arbuthnot, John Garner-Evans, E. H. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Armstrong, C. W. George, J. C. (Pollok) Maddan, Martin
Ashton, H. Glover, D. Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Atkins, H. E. Godber, J. B. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Baldwin, Sir Archer Gower, H. R. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Barter, John Graham, Sir Fergus Markham, Major Sir Frank
Batsford, Brian Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) Marlowe, A. A. H.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Green, A. Mathew, R.
Beamish, Col. Tufton Grimond, J. Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Mawby, R. L.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Medlicott, Sir Frank
Bidgood, J. C. Gurden, Harold Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Hall, John (Wycombe) Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Bishop, F. P. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Body, R. F. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nairn, D. L. S.
Bonham Carter, Mark Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nicholls, Harmar
Bossom, Sir Alfred Henderson, John (Cathcart) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hesketh, R. F. Nugent, G. R. H.
Brooman-White, R, C. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Bryan, P. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Burden, F. F. A. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Carr, Robert Hirst, Geoffrey Osborne, C.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Page, R. G.
Channon, H. P. G. Hope, Lord John Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Chichester-Clark, R. Hornby, R. P. Partridge, E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Peel, W. J.
Cole, Norman Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Peyton, J, W. W.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cooke, Robert Hurd, Sir Anthony Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) Pitman, I. J.
Corfreld, F. V. Iremonger, T. L. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pott, H. P.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Powell, J. Enoch
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Crowrter, Sir John (Finchley) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Cunningham, Knox Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ramsden, J. E.
Currie, G. B. H. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Redmayne, M.
Davidson, Viscountess Kershaw, J. A. Rees-Davies, W. R.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kirk, P. M. Remnant, Hon. P.
Deedes, W. F. Langford-Holt, J. A. Renton, D. L. M.
de Ferranti, Basil Leather, E. H. C. Ridsdale, J. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Leavey, J. A. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Doughty, C. J. A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Robson Brown, Sir William
du Cann, E. D. L. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Roper, Sir Harold
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Russell, R. S.
Duncan, Sir James Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Sharples, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Linstead, Sir H. N. Shepherd, William
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle-upon-Tyne,N.) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Longden, Gilbert Speir, R. M.
Errington, Sir Eric Loveys, Walter H. Spence, R. H. (Aberdeen, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Fell, A. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.) Webster, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Storey, S. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Tilney, John (Wavertree) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Studholme, Sir Henry Vickers, Miss Joan Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Summers, Sir Spencer Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wade, D. W. Woollam, John Victor
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Teeling, W. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Temple, John M. Wall, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester) Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
Thomas, P. J M. (Conway) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) Mr. Gibson-Watt.