HC Deb 24 March 1959 vol 602 cc1202-18
Mr. Speaker

Would it be convenient for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to take the Amendment in page 8, line 29, with the two following Amendments, in line 38, to leave out "both" and to leave out lines 39 to 46?

Mr. Willis

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would it be convenient to take also the Amendment in page 10, line 42—

Mr. Speaker

I am speaking of the Amendment in page 8, line 29.

Mr. Willis

I agree that they go with the preceding Amendment, but I was suggesting that a fourth Amendment might be taken at the same time, namely, that in Clause 7, page 10, line 42, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 11. It deals with the same point and is consequential on the other three Amendments.

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out from "may" to the end of line 34 and to insert: only be made by the person entitled to that interest". This Amendment was phrased during the Committee stage and seeks to eliminate the ground superior or the owner of the ground annual from the certificate procedure. We had a fairly long discussion on this matter in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a learned speech and gave us an historical account of the growth and development of the present system of feuing in Scotland.

During that discussion, we found that the Government were putting something additional in the Bill. When the Bill was introduced, we were told that its purpose was to enable the fair market value to be paid to the owner of land that was compulsorily acquired. In the words which we seek to delete, however, we find that the Government are not only doing that, but are providing an opportunity for the ground superior to put in an application for a certificate which will have the benefit of increasing the capitalised value of the feu that he holds. The Government are slipping in by the back door something with which we do not agree and which is outside the scope of the Bill.

I do not want to go into the question of how these people came to possess these rights. A great deal was said about that in Committee. In some cases, we do not know how they derived those rights and in other cases they have bought them. In many cases, they have bought them as an investment. I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that the people who have bought feus or ground annuals as an investment have taken a normal business risk. I cannot see why we should pick out these people because the value of their interest has gone down and say to them, "Under the provisions of the Bill, we will allow you to recoup yourselves."

I say that because the examples given by the hon. Gentleman in Committee were examples of that character. He quoted one in which the value of the land in question was about £60 and the capitalised value of the feu was £400 or £500. I do not suggest that that is generally applicable in Scotland, but if it is the case it seems to me that the feu charged has been much too high and that the person who holds it has been enjoying a considerable income to which he was not justly entitled.

In the case quoted by the Joint Under-Secretary, who quoted other cases yesterday on another Amendment concerning the sum paid by Glasgow Corporation when it was buying out certain feus in Scotland, I cannot see any justification for the amount being increased. In the first place, other people take business risks and if they are failures, they have to bear the loss. That is the ethics of the party opposite. Why the Government should suddenly come along and say that we must not continue this in the case of the ground superior, or why he should be selected for preferential treatment, I cannot understand. It is unfair and it should not come into the Bill.

In the second place, it seems that in the cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the ground superior has for too long been enjoying an income far above what he ought to have been enjoying. Why we should now say, "You will lose something if the local authority wishes to acquire your interest in this land as the ground superior", I do not know. We should not do this. Why it is so unreasonable is that the public are asked to pay. It is the taxpayer and the ratepayer who now have to compensate these people for a loss which they have made as the result of taking an ordinary business risk. We have to compensate them on the basis of something which, on the face of it, appears to be exceedingly unjust over a very long period.

In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made no case in justification of that. He told us the purpose, but he did not endeavour to justify it. He did not point out why it was right that we should do this or why the taxpayer or ratepayer should he called upon to foot the bill. We will be very glad if he will do so now. If he cannot, we must consider whether to divide the House on our Amendment to delete this part of the Bill.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

I beg to second the Amendment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, the Amendment seeks to eliminate the ground superior from the provisions of the Clause. As the Joint Under-Secretary will be aware, in Committee we gave classic examples of the extortionate demands being made by ground superiors to local authorities who seek to acquire these feu duties and ground burdens to which the ground superior becomes entitled. I quoted many instances.

Unfortunately, I must say, also, that the largest ground superior in Scotland is, perhaps, the Churches. In some instances, they have found this to be a rather profitable form of investment. Local authorities are confronted with the position that when they seek to buy these feu duties or ground annuals, the demand made against them is extortionate. In some cases, the capitalised value is estimated at £700, £800 or £900. The hon. Gentleman will tell me that in the case of compulsory acquisition, the local authority can bring in the district valuer and that between the ground superior and local authority, some better arrangement might be possible.

If the Bill has demonstrated nothing else, it has demonstrated that there is now need for a complete overhaul of the whole feudal system in Scotland. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will take this to heart. I assure him that if the Government were to bring in a Measure of that kind, he would get the backing of the Opposition.

There is every justification for the Amendment, in view of what is taking place throughout Scotland and the manner in which local authorities are being held to ransom when they come to acquire feu duties, ground burdens and matters of that kind. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give us more satisfaction tonight than he did during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. N. Macpherson

I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that I can give him more, or indeed any, satisfaction by my answer. What I shall try to do is to give him an explanation. It would be going much wider than the Amendment, and the purposes of the Bill, if we were to consider tonight a complete overhaul of our land tenure system in Scotland.

This Amendment would have two effects. In the first place it would have a negative effect in preventing a superior or similar interest from applying for, or appealing against, a certificate under Clause 4. It would also have a positive effect, which is to confer a right on persons with an interest in land to apply for a certificate. I would say in passing that the Amendment would be unnecessary for that positive purpose, since persons with an interest in land are already empowered to make an application under Clause 4, and therefore the Amendment would add nothing to what is already in the Bill.

The essence of this matter is that we are trying to reach fair market value, and we come back all the time to what is fair market value for the land to be acquired. The object of the Clause is to ensure that fair market value will be paid. As I explained at a previous stage of the Bill, it may be that for some reason or another the owner may not apply for a certificate. If he does not do so where a certificate would have been available had he applied for it he will not be getting fair market value for the land.

Mr. Willis

Why does it matter?

Mr. Macpherson

It matters because, as I explained before, in some cases it will not be the owner who will suffer but the superior, because the latter will not then be able to get the full consideration to which he is entitled. So we come back to what the Bill is designed to achieve. If the owner is not interested in fair market value because it is the superior who will get the advantage of fair market value being paid—the consideration being related to compensation which in turn is confined to the market value of the land to be acquired—it is only right that the superior on his own account should be able to apply for that certificate.

Mr. Willis

Why?

Mr. Macpherson

If the owner is not prepared to defend the rights of the superior—in other words, to make it possible for the owner himself in a sense to meet his obligation to the superior—then the superior must be put in a position to do it for himself. That is the purpose of allowing the superior to apply for a certificate.

The hon. Gentleman said that this was slipped into the Bill because it will increase the consideration which the superior will receive. As I explained yesterday, it cannot increase the value of the consideration, the capitalised value of the feu, beyond what is the capitalised value of that feu. In other words, if the number of years' purchase of a feu at a given period—assuming the credit of the feuar or owner is adequate— is, say, sixteen years, the capitalised value of that feu would be sixteen years' purchase.

7.15 p.m.

If, on the other hand, the credit of the feuar is less, the market will relate the value of the superior's rights to that position, and the market will also relate the value of those feu rights to the value of the land over which the superior's rights are held. So there is a market for the superior's rights and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, they are freely bought and sold; but they are bought and sold, as they should be, on the basis that the market value of the land will be paid if it is acquired. Therefore, there again the superior ought to be entitled to apply for a certificate.

Mr. McInnes

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the problems that confront local authorities when they acquire the feu? The owner, in the first instance, demands a figure which approximates to thirty or forty years' purchase price. Then, when the local authority brings in the district valuer, invariably the agreed figure is a twenty years' purchase price.

Mr. Macpherson

The reason for that is that the superior tends to regard his right to receive feu duty as a right in perpetuity. He may take the view that over a period of years that right will be maintained, though the land at one time may go down in value and it may go up in value at some other time. Here, the hon. Gentleman is dealing with cases not where the land has been bought compulsorily, but possibly in anticipation of a sale by agreement, or even in anticipation of the property being taken over from the owners, because the owners just hand it over, as has happened fairly often in Glasgow; in anticipation of that, the superior rights are being acquired. It is natural that the superior should say, in the first instance, to the acquiring authority that he has feu duties of, say, £50—

Mr. Willis rose—

Mr. Macpherson

The obligations are there. He may say he has a right to receive £50 on that property. The purchase value is twenty years and therefore his price is £1,000. However, as I pointed out previously, although it might have been possible for the superiors to do that before 1954, and for the amount received to come close to that, they now know that they are limited by Section 62 of the 1954 Act to the market value of the land. The total consideration plus compensation must be the unburdened value of the land, and it cannot be more than that. Therefore, while they may demand in the first instance the full capitalised value of their feu duty, when the district valuer comes along he will assess it on the basis of the market value of the land, as he is bound to do, and naturally a settlement will approximate to that.

Mr. Willis

Surely this point would enter into consideration. In the example given by the hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage of the Bill, the value of the land was £60, with an annual feu duty of £25. As I said then, that is out of all proportion to the value of the ground, even with a certificate, which would increase the value perhaps to £100 or £200. Why should the local authority have to pay that inflated value?

Mr. Macpherson

I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the local authority does not have to pay the inflated value. The feu duty in the case which the hon. Gentleman mentions is £25. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said—I think I heard him murmuring—

Mr. Ross

I did not say a word.

Mr. Macpherson

I forgot; the hon. Gentleman does not murmur.

Mr. Ross

It is brooks that murmur. Mr. Willis: They babble.

Mr. Macpherson

The feu duty may be £25, and it may or may not be the case that feu duty is being received in full, but the market value that will be put upon the superior's rights will be related to the value of the land and also to the credit of the owner. It may be £100, or only four years' purchase. That might be the market value, but if an additional certificate is available for a new planning use, then, of course, it may well be that that will add to the value of the land. In that case, there will be more chance of the superior getting somewhat nearer to the capitalised value of the feu. If the owner did not apply for a certificate, that chance would be lost to the superior. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the superior should himself be put in a position to apply for the certificate.

I should like to deal with one other point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because it is a point about which many people in Scotland feel very keenly. He talked about the extortionate demands of superiors, and went on immediately, almost in the same breath, to mention the Churches in this regard.

Mr. McInnes

No.

Mr. Macpherson

The hon. Gentleman went on, almost in the same breath, to mention the Churches, and talked about their having a profitable form of investment. The fact is that the Churches were compelled by law to invest in that form of investment. They had no option but to do so, and it is a fact that Section 62 of the 1954 Act has severely limited the amount which they can obtain if the local authority exercises its option on compulsory purchase to buy them out. If, on the other hand, it is a question of their being bought out in an ordinary transaction, they know very well that, with Section 62 of the 1954 Act on the Statute Book, the amount which they are able to get is rigidly limited in relation to the total value of the land. Therefore, I would deprecate very much any suggestion that the Churches are involved in this form of investment in any oppressive way. That is certainly not the case.

Mr. McInnes

I did not suggest that the Churches were. What I said was that it was unfortunate that the Churches were perhaps one of the biggest holders. That is what I said, recognising that by Statute they were more or less compelled to invest in that form of investment. The point I am making—and there are isolated examples of the Churches—is that, outside the Churches, the private speculator who invests in this form of investment has undoubtedly indulged in considerable racketeering, and I particularly emphasise that statement because we have had experience of it, I can tell the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in Glasgow—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that the hon. Member should make a second speech.

Mr. Macpherson

I am assured that, since the 1954 Act was passed, at any rate, the private speculator has practically disappeared from this market. Indeed, it is not very easy to realise assets of this nature in regard to some of the properties which are being acquired in Glasgow.

The whole point of this—and this is the central point—is to try to relate what the superior gets to the real market value of the land, and it is in order that the real market value can be established that the superior is given a right to apply for a certificate which, in almost every case, he will not exercise, except in default of the owner himself applying for it. In any case, he is most unlikely to exercise it if the capitalised value of his interest is already fully covered in the market value of the land.

Mr. Ross

We have had a very interesting sixth or seventh attempt by the Under-Secretary to justify what the Government are trying to do. If it has not become clear to anyone else, it should have become clear to the Under-Secretary that the trouble lies not at all in this Bill but in Section 62 of the 1954 Act, and that what we are trying to do here, probably in line with the whole artificiality of the assumptive nature of this Bill, is quite unrealistically to drag in the land superior.

In this Clause which we are now amending, we are dealing with the case in which what is being purchased is not the rights of the land superior at all but the rights of the vassal. There are two rights in land in Scotland. There is the perpetual right of the land superior of dominium directum. The sole purpose in life of the land superior and his descendants, as it was of some of his ancestors, is to collect the annual feu duty in respect of land which, somehow or other in the mysteries of the past, was acquired by his family. It is true that certain investment changes, to which reference is being made, have taken place, but the historic fact is that under him is the man who owns the land—the person who pays the feu duty.

The actual fact is that, in ordinary circumstances, if the owner of the land sells the land, the land superior has no right to intervene in that sale—none whatever. I own a piece of land in Scotland on which my house is built. If I sell it tomorrow the land superior to whom I paid my annual tribute is not the slightest bit interested. His feu duty still goes on with the next owner. In fact, what we are doing here is conferring on the land superior the right to interfere in negotiations in which he has no direct interest. He has no interest in the land, and I have no less an authority for saying this than the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I do not quote him because he is Solicitor-General for Scotland but because in this case he was himself quoting a higher authority, and so, probably, there is much more certainty about it. On 29th January, in one of his irascible interjections, he interrupted one of my own not quite so short speeches, in which I said: It leaves it open to the land superior to apply for a certificate because he has an interest in land. The Solicitor-General said: He has not. On the authority of Lord Dunedin, in the House of Lords, as I have said, he has not an interest in land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th January, 1959; c. 449–50.] What we are doing here is conferring upon him an interest in land. In other words, we are changing the law of Scotland—

Mr. Willis

By the back door.

Mr. Ross

As my hon. Friend says, by the back door, in one of the craziest Bills that any Scottish lawyer has ever set his eyes upon. That is exactly what is happening. When we went through the Clauses on which this is hinged—Clauses 3 and 4—we limited the right of application for a certificate to people who were directly concerned. What we are now doing is to widen that and give to someone who, by the law of Scotland and by the declaration of one of the Law Lords of Scotland, has no interest in land, an interest not in any private negotiation that relates to the ordinary everyday sale of land, but only when a local authority or some such authority buys land under a compulsory purchase order.

7.30 p.m.

If there is something wrong with the present system, the law of Scotland should be changed and the Law Officers and the Secretary of State should justify the change in the general position of the land superior. The Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as I that he would get little, if any, support in Scotland for that. The position has become burdensome and anomalous and resented by the people of Scotland, who do not like the position of the feudal superior who has only rights and no obligations. I expanded that aspect of the argument in Committee, and it would be wrong to go over that ground again.

The hon. Gentleman said that it was only fair that we should have this provision in respect of compulsory purchase. He said that the local authority would not pay an inflated value. But the whole purpose of this provision is to ensure that in some cases the local authorities will pay more. The hon. Gentleman went out of his way to suggest that and gave example after example.

In Section 62 of the 1954 Act, which was passed while the hon. Gentleman was in office, there was laid down an inflexible formula relating to the consideration to be paid by a local authority seeking to discharge its liabilities for feu duties, that is to say, when it calculates the capitalised value of the annual toll of feu duty. It was the hon. Gentleman's Government which made that provision. If there are some difficulties about it, it should be changed. I am not convinced that there are any difficulties. Even if there were, this would not be the right way to change them. The Government should be bold in this matter. It may well be that they are not very anxious to let the people of Scotland know what they are doing.

Now I come to the justice of the case. I have all along deplored that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have insisted, on this and other matters related, on dragging in the Church of Scotland. I do not think that the Church of Scotland would wish to be considered in any way different from anyone else holding a feu duty. It was easy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to quote what the Church of Scotland had said. I can only say that he was more anxious to quote the Church of Scotland on feu duties than on what it said about Nyasaland.

It is obviously the position that in calculating the compensation and market value one is driven to the conclusion that the ground is overburdened. The passage of time has proved that and has shown that in any private sale of land or property the price is always related to the burdened value of the land.

Why should we go out of our way deliberately to confer on the land superior, during negotiations in which he is not directly concerned and which concern not him but the owner, a right which is conferred upon him at the expense of the local authority and which permits him at a later stage to inflate what he gets when the local authority exercises its optional right of seeking discharge of the land from feu duty? That enables him to get an additional sum of money outwith the market value of the land, which is most unfair.

I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will come clean on this matter. It is the ratepayers and not the Government who will have to pay. The Government are being generous to the feudal landlords of Scotland, not at the expense of the Treasury but at the expense of the ratepayers. Local ratepayers will cake some convincing before they believe that it is fair to confer a right which has been decisively declared to be nonexistent and to do so in this obscure subsection in this obstruse—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

Abstruse.

Mr. Ross

—and complicated provision.

I hope that we shall hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no justification for introducing this new right only in respect of negotiations related to compulsory purchase. There is no justification for conferring a right on the land superior in ordinary sales of land. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Speaker

Not by way of intervention. Has the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) finished his speech? The Question is—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I am sorry that I did not rise at once, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), as usual, appeared to be rather uncertain of his ground and of his seat.

I want to make it clear that it was not I who brought in the Church of Scotland, either tonight or on a previous occasion. On the first occasion, I mentioned in passing, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) rightly did tonight, that the Church of Scotland was the largest holder of feu duties in Scotland. That is a matter which ought to be before the House.

I went further when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is not with us tonight, accused me—and I quote from memory—of "giving way to vested interests; the landlords again; giving way to representations by the superiors and the landlords". I pointed out, to correct the hon. Member and to get the truth on record, that the only representations which I had received had been from the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, and the Episcopal Church of Scotland. That is a statement of truth.

Mr. Ross

And nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Willis

This was on a different Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I know, but reference was made to me bringing in the Church of Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) brought up this matter in Committee and if he is entitled to say in Committee what I said on an earlier Bill, I am entitled to bring it up at this stage, little though he may like it.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock, with his usual charm and persuasive gentleness, has been saying that the Bill will give the superior something which he has never had. He would still be getting far less than he got before 1954. It is true, as I explained in Committee, that the superior does not have an interest in land under the Land Clauses Act, 1845, which entitles him to a notice to treat. But under that Act he was entitled to get full consideration for the value of his feu duty and, as I have explained before, that was interpreted in most cases up to 1954 as being the full capitalised value, or something like twenty years purchase.

The 1954 Act altered that, and in this case all we are doing by this Clause is saying that if by an oversight or by the failure of the owner to ensure it the market value is not properly assessed, the superior can come in and have full market value assessed by the issue of a certificate and get his appropriate share of the payment made, just as he would if the owner had applied for a certificate. For the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to say that this is giving to the superior a right to exact from a local authority more than the actual market value—

Mr. Ross

No.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The hon. Member said it was "outwith the actual market value", which I took to mean beyond. If he wishes to correct me, I will give way and deal with him later.

Mr. Ross

I was correcting what was stated by the Under-Secretary, who said that by this means the land superior would not get more. I was saying he would get more than he would otherwise get were this Clause not in the Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

The hon. Member may have said so, but if I remember rightly—if I am wrong, I apologise but I made a note of the words—the hon. Member said "out-with the actual market value." I wish to make clear that the superior cannot get more than the market value as at present laid down in this Bill.

Mr. Willis

But this is a qualification. Surely in any case under the 1919 rules the valuer is bound to assess at the market value. What we are putting into the Bill is something additional.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

What we are putting in is the fair market value.

Mr. Ross

Really!

Mr. Willis

This is a new fair market value.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

If it is fair market value—we have dealt with this already for the owner—to assess it on the certificate basis for the owner it is equally fair to assess the fair market value on that basis for the superior. I see no reason why not. What I wish to make absolutely clear is that the total payment by the local authority to the superior and to the owner combined cannot exceed the fair market value under the Bill.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 161.

Division No. 75.] AYES [7.43 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Deedes, W. F. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Aitken, W. T. de Ferranti, Basil Hope, Lord John
Alport, C. J. M. Digby, Simon Wingfield Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Dodds-Parker, A, D. Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Doughty, C. J. A. Hurd, Sir Anthony
Arbuthnot, John du Cann, E. D. L. Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh S.)
Armstrong, C. W. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Iremonger, T. L.
Astor, Hon, J. J. Duncan, Sir James Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Atkins, H. E. Elliott,R. W,(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Baldwin, Sir Archer Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Barter, John Errington, Sir Eric Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Batsford, Brian Farey-Jones, F. W. Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Baxter, Sir Beverley Fell, A. Kershaw, J. A.
Beamish, Col. Tufton Finlay, Graeme Kirk, P. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Fletcher-Cooke, C. Langford-Holt, J. A.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Gammans, Lady Leather, E. H. C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Garner-Evans, E. H. Leavey, J. A.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) George, J. C. (Pollok) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Bidgood, J. C. Gibson-Watt, D. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Glover, D. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Godber, J. B. Lindsay, Martin (Solihulll)
Bishop, F. P. Gower, H. R. Linstead, Sir H. N.
Body, R. F. Graham, Sir Fergus Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Bonham Carter, Mark Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) Longden, Gilbert
Bossom, Sir Alfred Green, A. Loveys, Walter H.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Grimond, J. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Brooman-White, R. c. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bryan, P. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. McAdden, S. J.
Burden, F. F. A. Macdonald, Sir Peter
Carr, Robert Gurden, Harold Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Channon, H. P. G. Hall, John (Wycombe) McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Harris, Reader (Heston) Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Cole, Norman Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Maddan, Martin
Cooke, Robert Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Maitland.Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Henderson, John (Cathcart) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Marlowe, A. A. H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood) Hesketh, R. F. Mathew, R.
Cunningham, Knox Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Currie, G. B. H. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Mawby, R. L.
Davidson, Viscountess Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement (Montgomery) Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Medlicott, Sir Frank
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hirst, Geoffrey Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Redmayne, M. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Rees-Davies, W. R. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Remnant, Hon. P. Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Renton, D. L. M. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Nairn, D. L. S. Ridsdale, J. E. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Nicholls, Harmar Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) Robson Brown, Sir William Vickers, Miss Joan
Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Roper, Sir Harold Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Nugent, G. R. H. Russell, R. S. Wade, D. W.
O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co, Antrim, N.) Sharples, R. C. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Shepherd, William Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.) Spearman, Sir Alexander Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Osborne, C. Speir, R. M. Wall, Patrick
Page, R. G. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Partridge, E. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Webster, David
Peel, W. J. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Williams R. Dudley (Exeter)
Peyton, J. W. W. Storey, S. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Studholme, Sir Henry Woollam, John Victor
Pitman, I. J. Summers, Sir Spencer Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Pitt, Miss E. M. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Pott, H. P. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Powell, J. Enoch Teeling, W. Mr. Chichester-Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh) Temple, John M. and Mr. Whitelaw.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
NOES
Ainsley, J. W. Howell, Charles (Perry Bar) Prentice, R. E.
Awbery, S. S. Howell, Denis (All Saints) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Hoy, J. H. Price, Philips(Gloucestershire, W.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hunter, A. E. Probert, A. R.
Blackburn, F. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pursey, Comdr. H.
Boardman, H. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Randall, H. E.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Redhead, E. C.
Brock way, A. F. Janner, B. Reeves, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Johnson, James (Rugby) Reid, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) Reynolds, G. W.
Burton, Miss F. E. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Carmichael, J. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Key, Rt. Hon. C, W. Ross, William
Champion, A. J. King, Dr. H. M. Short, E. W.
Chapman, W. D. Lawson, G. M. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Chetwynd, G. R. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Skeffington, A. M.
Coldrick, W. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Lever, Leslie (Ardwiok) Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Logan, D. G. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Cronin, J. D. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sorensen, R. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A. McAlister, Mrs. Mary Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek) McCann, J. Sparks, J. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) MacColl, J. E. Spriggs, Leslie
de Freltas, Geoffrey Mclnnes, J. Steele, T.
Delargy, H. J. McKay, John (Wallsend) Storehouse, John
Diamond, John McLeavey, Frank Stross, Dr,Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Sylvester, G. O.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edelman, M. Mann, Mrs. Jean Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mason, Roy Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mellish, R. J. Timmons, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mitchison, G. R. Tomney, F.
Fernyhough, E. Moody, A. S. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fletcher, Eric Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Viant S. P.
Foot, D. M. Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert (Lewis'm,s.) Warbey, W. N.
Forman, J. C Mort, D. L. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moss, R. Wheeldon, W. E.
Gooch, E. G. Moyle, A. Wilkins, W. A.
Greenwood, Anthony Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, David (Neath)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Grey, C. F. Oliver, G. H. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oswald, T. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hale, Leslie Owen, W. J. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Hamilton, W. W. Padley, W. E. Willis, Eustace (Edinbugh, E.)
Hannan, W. Paget, R. T. Winterbottom, Richard
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Palmer, A. M. F. Woof, R. E.
Hastings, S. Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.) Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hayman, F. H. Parker, J. Zilliacus K.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Paton, John
Herbison, Miss M. Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Holman, P. Pentland, N. Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.
Houghton, Douglas Plummer, Sir Leslie