HC Deb 02 March 1960 vol 618 cc1320-35

8.35 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty".

This Amendment is the final point which we want to put to the Committee after a fairly thorough examination of the Bill in Standing Committee.

As hon. Members know, the Bill is designed to extend the period after 31st March in which it will be possible for local authorities which have requisitioned property to go on holding that property while they complete the operation of derequisitioning. The issue between us and the Government at this stage is not whether it is right to de-requisition or to continue the period in which derequisitioning can take place, but what subsidy should be paid by the Government to local authorities which have not completed their derequisitioning by 31st March.

Originally, requisitioning was undertaken by local authorities as agents for the Government and a 100 per cent. grant was given on the deficiency of the whole operation, that is to say, after the rent had been collected and out of the rent there had been paid the cost of maintaining and repairing the property and compensation to the owners of the property, any deficiency was met by the Government up to 100 per cent.

That continued until 1955 when the subsidy was reduced from 100 per cent. to 75 per cent., which was a reasonable figure because it represented more or less the general proportion of central and local subsidies for housing operations under the Housing Acts.

I do not want to go into the question of why it has happened, but there are authorities which have not completed their derequisitioning and are carrying on in the same way as they were under the 1955 Act, and performing precisely the same kind of activities, and the Government are purporting here to fine them for having failed to complete their derequisitioning. Had they been able to complete their programme by 31st March they would have received 75 per cent. Under the Bill they will get 25 per cent.

We discussed this in Committee and suggested that there was a strong case for maintaining the same subsidy as had been given under the old Act. The Government resisted that and we were defeated. We are now coming half way to meet them and suggesting 50 per cent. instead of 75 per cent.

There are two main arguments against giving the subsidy of 50 per cent. The first argument which the Government have used is that it would not be keeping faith with those local authorities which will have completed the operation by the end of this month, and it would be unfair to them if authorities which have failed to complete are in the same financial position as they are.

One of the difficulties that the Government have in holding that argument with any conviction is that they also say that there is very little involved in this, that very few dwellings will be involved and that the actual charge will not be great. If it will not be great from the Government's point of view, the "good local authorities", the "good boys" who played the Government's game will not have much to complain about if their weaker brethren who have failed to achieve the same objective in the same time get the same grant. It is a specious argument any way. The Government are obviously trying to stir up a little local authority jealousy by saying that the local authorities which have completed the job will be livid if the others get a certain amount of money out of the Government.

That is not a sensible approach to the local authority outlook. Most local authorities would recognise the difficulties of their neighbours and would not be motivated by such thoughts. They would not care two hoots whether the other authorities were getting 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. They would feel that any local authority which managed to get a grant out of the Government should be encouraged to do so. The Government's argument is not a good one.

The other argument is that those authorities which have not completed the operation by the end of the month are in some sense to blame for it, and therefore they ought to suffer financially for not having done it. That argument was put forward with great vigour and energy by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), and my impression was that he caused a good deal of embarrassment to the Government. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretary could not have used more honeyed words to the local authorities involved. He made no suggestion that this was in any sense a fine which was being levied on them because they failed to do the job.

There are many reasons why they may have failed to do the job. They may have had more property to deal with. In some cases they may have had landlords who were more difficult to persuade to accept licensees as tenants. The property may have been older and required more money to be spent on it to get it into a reasonable state before it could be used. There are all sorts of complications which explain why some local authorities have failed to keep up to the level of the others. Therefore, if the Government are not out to fine them for bad behaviour, there is no case for discrimination. If, as the Government tell us, there will be only a very small overlap—perhaps a matter of a few months, in most cases, involving very few dwellings—the sensible thing is to continue the financial arrangements negotiated with local authorities in 1955 until the whole operation is completed.

8.45 p.m.

The Amendment goes a little beyond that. In it we are saying, "All right, let us agree that there should be a small financial sanction to discourage them." That is not a very strong argument, but we will accept it as being something that the Government want. In that case, I suggest that the figure of 50 per cent. is a much more reasonable approximation to what is required than is their very drastic reduction from 75 per cent. to 25 per cent.

In the Bill the Government have changed the rules to the disadvantage of local authorities. I am not quarrelling with them for changing the rules, but I would point out that they have increased the amount of compensation payable to the owners of property. The Committee approved that increase as being desirable, but it means that the loss on the property is liable to be greater. It means, therefore, that on the one hand the Government are increasing the loss likely to be incurred on requisitioned property and, on the other hand, are backing out of their responsibility for their own decision by reducing the percentage which they are prepared to pay on the deficiency in running this operation.

In those circumstances I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment, which is a reasonable compromise. It goes some way to meet the Government's desire to have a slight financial discrimination against the dilatory authorities while, at the same time, it avoids inflicting financial hardship upon them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph)

The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has moved his Amendment very persuasively, to the effect that, after 31st March, taxpayers should continue to pay, in respect of those dwellings which, by an order of my right hon. Friend, are still under requisition, a contribution not of 75 per cent., as now, but of 50 per cent. The hon. Member has been able to do this only by disposing far too easily of what I regard as the two main arguments in favour of a reduction to a rather lower figure.

As the hon. Member says, this provision will concern only a few local authorities. It will affect a body of local authorities who, for a few months, will not quite have disposed of their requisitioning problems—some because they started too late, some because they went too slowly, even though they made an early start, and some, perhaps, because of a political miscalculation. But we must remember that the vast majority of local authorities—including many which had just as daunting a problem as that which faced those few who will not have finished the job—will have totally disposed of their requisitioned property by the end of March. They will have every right to resent the easy availability to those who, for one reason or another, did not manage to finish the job, of anything like the same amount of taxpayers' money as they themselves received.

The hon. Member says that he is humouring the Government by departing from his own principles so far as to agree to a reduction in the 75 per cent. grant received now. He comes down to 50 per cent. I still think that he underestimates the resentment which will be felt by local authorities who have made such great efforts to succeed in their task if so little difference were made for those few who, for one reason or another, have not been so successful.

We take the view that local authorities who do not finish the job have no right to expect anything. There were a number of warnings—this is the second argument which the hon. Gentleman failed to meet—that any authority which failed to finish derequisitioning by the end of March could not expect a contribution from the taxpayer. Far from holding the local authorities concerned to this prediction, we are, in fact, tempering the wind by conceding a 25 per cent. contribution from the taxpayer.

We believe that the level of 25 per cent. is just about the right compromise. It eases the shock for those very few local authorities for the short time still left, while maintaining faith with the vast bulk of local authorities who, often in the face of equally difficult problems, will have totally succeeded in their task. I very much hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be pressed, and that the figure of 25 per cent. will remain in the Bill.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

I fail to understand the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that the local authorities concerned have no right to expect anything. Let me remind him that since 1955 the Minister has been warned repeatedly that, despite every effort which they might make, some local authorities would be unable to complete their derequisitioning programme by 31st March this year. It was only belatedly that the Minister recognised the justice of that criticism.

I wish to recall to the Parliamentary Secretary the date when the legislation was brought forward and when an offer was made by the present Minister of Aviation, who was then in charge of the Measure, to extend the period for two years. He thought then that some period ought to be put forward. It seems to me absolutely monstrous to argue that these local authorities ought to expect nothing, but that the Government are kindly offering to them the small amount of 25 per cent.

I should like to hear the Minister state in plain language whether he regards this as a penal Clause. From what he has said it is nothing less than a penal Clause. In effect, the hon. Gentleman said that the authorities which completed their derequisitioning task by 31st March would be good boys and would have done their work, and, therefore, they would have the 50 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary says that they will resent the payment of anything more than 25 per cent. to the others. What evidence is there that there will be such resentment? Why should there be? It may be that there are local authorities which will complete this work because the task was comparatively light. How do their difficulties compare with those, for example, of the Borough of Hackney and the Borough of Stoke Newington which have made every effort to complete their gigantic task?

Surely the Minister is wrong in saying that every authority which fails to complete its task by 31st March is at fault, because that is what he is saying. He proposes to punish them by limiting the amount of compensation to 25 per cent. There may have been one or two which failed. Perhaps one or two of the authorities have been dilatory in this matter. What about the others? Are they to suffer also? Does the argument apply to all? If one or two have been dilatory in some way, why punish the others?

If the Minister were to take cognisance of the facts which exist in certain constituencies—the Herculean efforts made by them, efforts to get landlords to accept statutory tenants—he would know that they have striven to carry out their obligations though they have failed. They have not been able to complete derequisitioning by 31st March. The Minister says, "You have all been naughty boys and as a result we shall give you only 25 per cent." Surely it is simple justice to recognise the position.

The Amendment is a moderate one. The former Amendment which asked for 75 per cent. was a just one, but this is an attempt at compromise. The Minister should recognise that he has been at fault. He should recognise that the efforts of those borough councils to get something done should be rewarded to some extent. He ought not to punish them in this way. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think again and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, South-West)

I was rather surprised at the words the Parliamentary Secretary used in replying to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have an unfortunate attitude towards local authorities. He said that those which have not completed derequisitioning had started too late, acted too slowly, or made a political miscalculation. Those which had succeeded in derequisitioning might be full of resentment if the Government were considerate towards those which had been unable to complete derequisitioning.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not persist in this attitude towards local authorities. He holds an office in an important Ministry, a Ministry to which local authorities look for guidance and help. It would be unfortunate if he were to speak too freely on the lines on which he has spoken today, blaming local authorities for being too slow, too late, or making a political miscalculation and causing resentment. We take the view that the Minister should do all he can to help local authorities. As my hon. Friend said, the attitude of the Government seems to be that those which have not completed de-requisitioning by 31st March are responsible for some mismanagement and default in carrying out the task that the Government placed upon them. I take quite the opposite view.

I know, and I think that the Minister and the House know, that the incidence of the burden of requisitioning and de-requisitioning varies considerably from place to place. We must all admit that the amount of requisitioning in different local authority areas varied considerably because the amount of bombing varied considerably. Local authorities did not start with an even task and the same amount of work to do; they had different burdens to carry. It was to be expected, in those circumstances, that some would finish the work earlier than others. Now, through no fault of their own, those which have not completed derequisitioning are to be penalised by the Government because they failed to complete a task which it was not possible for them to complete in time.

9.0 p.m.

We submit that, on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary failed to give due consideration to local authorities which had generally had a heavier burden than those which had managed to complete the derequisitioning programme. In view of the small amount of money involved, it would have been better for the relationship between the Ministry and local authorities if the Ministry had met us on this point and had raised the figure from 25 to 50 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes said, this is not an unreasonable request. Personally, I think that it should go further—to 75 per cent.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not met the argument or approached the local authorities with understanding. I ask him not to take the attitude towards local authorities that they will harbour resentment against other authorities. They will do nothing of the kind. I have had some experience of local government, and I suggest that it matters a great deal what attitude the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary adopt towards local authorities' efforts. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the Amendment, I ask him at least to bear in mind that it is not helpful if local councillors are accused by the Minister of not fulfilling their duties and of harbouring resentment against each other.

Mr. Michael Cliffe (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

I hope that the Government will pay serious attention to the Amendment. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that a penalty should be imposed upon all those local authorities which have failed to return all requisitioned properties to their owners by 31st March, 1960.

I believe that the Minister is well aware that on more than one occasion the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee was more than convinced that, with the best will in the world, it would be impossible to meet the Minister's requirements by 31st March, 1960. The Committee made numerous protests, and asked the Minister to reconsider his decision and to give more time in order to enable local authorities to complete these duties within the meaning of the Act. This was not done.

Most people who have any knowledge or experience of housing in London agree with me that local authorities have performed miracles. What has been achieved is beyond anything we dared to imagine in 1955. Local authorities were obliged to buy much property which was sub-standard, and they spent a lot of money in trying to make that property habitable in order to provide alternative accommodation where they were unable to effect any agreement about the requisitioned property.

If there has been any delay, some responsibility ought to be accepted by the Minister, because at the beginning very little or no encouragement was given to local authorities to purchase other properties in order to deal with their derequisitioning problems. It was only after he himself appreciated how far short most of them would fall that he finally gave some encouragement to local authorities to try to meet the position by purchasing other properties.

I represent a double-barrelled constituency. Both Shoreditch and Finsbury have complied with the situation, but at what a cost. About £180,000 has been paid for 240 properties, and at present money is being lost because the properties need so much in the way of repairs merely to maintain them in a habitable state.

These are the kind of things which most local authorities have had to do. To suggest that further burdens have to be carried by local authorities, which means that they have to be carried by local rates, is not only unjust, but extremely unreasonable. The moving of the Amendment is reasonable, and I hope that the Government will see its justice and accept it.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

I had not intended to intervene, but I have been rather stung by the Minister's attitude on this very reasonable Amendment. Whatever he may say, clearly this is a penal provision. It is directed against local authorities—admittedly a very few of them—which have been up against most exceptional difficulties. Every one of the authorities concerned has had not only a requisitioned housing problem but also a variety of other housing problems.

The Minister knows that in Wood Green we are not affected by this problem. We have managed, and we hope that by 31st March we shall have cleared our requisitioned housing problem. At the same time, we are defaulting in other ways. For example, we have not cleared our "prefabs" from open space. Local authorities have very often had to weigh up one consideration against another. Some authorities which have had a requisitioned housing problem have had acute cases of overcrowding, ill-health, and so on, on their housing waiting lists which have had to take priority.

When the Minister comes to the House and talks as if he regards these local authorities as being offenders—technically they may be—he completely under-estimates the real difficulties in which they have been involved. Every one of these authorities has a housing problem the solving of which gives its officials and councillors a continuous headache. They are built-up areas. There is a shortage of suitable property to acquire to replace requisitioned property which is of low standard.

Every requisitioned property has to be verore a local authority decides to buy it. In Wood Green we visited every one. I have been in practically 200 properties, looking them over from top to bottom to ensure that they were suitable for the authority to acquire. Where they were not, alternative properties have had to be provided. There is a shortage of alternative accommodation. I do not think that the Minister is taking all these factors into consideration.

As representing one of the authorities which has cleared the problem, I assure the Minister that we in Wood Green and Tottenham—and, I am sure, other boroughs with similar responsibilities—would not view it with any disfavour if he would now be generous to authorities in difficulty, if he would accept the Amendment and give them 50 per cent., which does penalise them but not so much as he attempts to do.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have second thoughts. The Bill gives an extension of time to these local authorities that are in difficulty. If he would now be a little more generous financially, he would not only help them but would help this very grave housing problem which, I think, he has underestimated.

Mr. MacColl

In part, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. The real difficulty, perhaps, into which some local authorities fell was that of making a political miscalculation. It is probably beyond all question that had we won the General Election, the local authorities know that they would have got fairer and more generous treatment than they have got from the present Government. But the steel speculators made a "packet" out of the success of the Government. They made a successful political calculation. Local authorities in the built-up industrial areas, and the ratepayers there, made a political miscalculation, because they knew on which side were the people who really cared for, understood and sympathised with their problems. That, of course, is why they have to pay this penalty. The Parliamentary Secretary has at last come clean, and, on that issue, I would press the Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph

This debate has really called for a repetition in brief of what I thought I had made abundantly clear on Second Reading. Derequisitioning has been a huge task. No one here deities that. As the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) said, it has been a vast task for those concerned and, as the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has said, it has often had to be tackled simultaneously with tackling a number of other housing jobs.

I quite accept that, and I accept, as has been said tonight, that the burden fell unevenly because the bombing fell unevenly. I accept that solving the problem was complicated by uneven distribution of other properties, and of sites, of unco-operative landlords, and that, altogether, derequisitioning has involved a vast campaign on the part of the local authorities concerned.

I recognised this, so generously, I thought, on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) this evening described my words towards local authorities as "honeyed". I have uttered no word of blame. I have not spoken of offenders. The fact is, as hon. Members must recognise, that by the end of March 98½ per cent. of the dwellings ever requisitioned during or since the war will have been released and, in many cases, they will have been released by local authorities with problems just as great, difficulties just as baffling, and other housing tasks just as numerous as there will be among those few local authorities who may apply—

Mrs. E. M. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

Name them.

Sir K. Joseph

I have the greatest admiration of the efforts made by all the local authorities concerned—

Mrs. Braddock

Name them.

Sir K. Joseph

There is Battersea, for instance, which has had a very large number of requisitioned houses but which, I believe, will have solved its whole problem by the end of March; in number, as large as any other borough, with just as much shortage of sites and lack of large houses for conversion as any other borough. However, it would be invidious, on this sort of occasion, to bandy relative merits.

No word of blame is being uttered from this Box, but the fact is, as the hon. Member for Widnes said, and as has been said by other hon. Members, some local authorities started late, some, after starting in time, did not exert the maximum vigour that others exerted—some, perhaps, made a political miscalculation. There is no word of blame from here, but the fact remains that any loss or injury to local authorities con- cerned can only be the result of their own efforts and, therefore, they can have only themselves to blame, though it is not my job or that of anyone else to blame them.

9.15 p.m.

The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) asked why the majority of local authorities who will have finished the task in time should resent it in any way if much the same contribution towards the management deficit were to be continued after the final date. He should ask himself what, among other things, spurred these local authorities forward often against quite baffling difficulties—difficulties quite as arduous as those which met those few local authorities that may not have completed in time. All local authorities have been twice warned. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked where the warning was, and why they should have had reason to expect no contribution from the taxpayer after 31st March. The answer is in two circulars, one in 1957 and one in 1959, as well as in answers to Parliamentary Questions. In all these they were repeatedly warned that after 31st March there would be no contribution from the taxpayer.

I am sorry that I cannot, therefore, agree that justice to that vast majority who will have succeeded in time, often against odds quite as large as anywhere else in the country, would be done by continuing the taxpayers' contribution for the short time and for the relatively few dwellings involved at a level as high as 50 per cent. The contrast between the treatment of those who have succeeded and those who, without any attribution of blame, will not quite have succeeded will not be sufficient to do justice to those whose efforts have resulted in complete success.

I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties that have had to be overcome. I repeat, there is no question of blame from this Box, but faith must be maintained with the vast majority of local authorities, and I still hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.

Question put, That "twenty-five" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 121.

Division No. 47.] AYES [8.25 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter George, J. C. (Pollok) Marten, Neil
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Glover, Sir Douglas Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Allason, James Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Arbuthnot, John Goodhew, Victor Mawby, Ray
Ashton, Sir Hubert Gower, Raymond Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Atkins, Humphrey Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Barber, Anthony Green, Alan Mills, Stratton
Barlow, Sir John Gresham Cooke, R. Montgomery, Fergus
Batsford, Brian Grimond, J. Morgan, William
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Grimston, Sir Robert Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Beamish, Col. Tufton Hall, John (Wycombe) Nabarro, Gerald
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Neave, Airey
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) Hare, Rt. Hon. John Nicholls, Harmar
Berkeley, Humphry Harris, Reader (Heston) Noble, Michael
Bidgood, John C. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Page, Graham
Biggs-Davison, John Hay, John Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Bishop, F. P. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Peel, John
Black, Sir Cyril Hendry, Forbes Percival, Ian
Bossom, Clive Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Peyton, John
Bourne-Arton, A. Hiley, Joseph Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Box, Donald Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Boyle, Sir Edward Hobson, John Pitman, I. J.
Brewis, John Hocking, Philip N. Pitt, Miss Edith
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. W. H. Holland, Philip Pott, Percivall
Brooman-White, R. Holt, Arthur Powell, J. Enoch
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Hopkins, Alan Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bryan, Paul Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Bullard, Denys Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Prior, J. M. L.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Burden, F. A. Hughes-Young, Michael Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hurd, Sir Anthony Proudfoot, Wilfred
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hutchison, Michael Clark Ramsden, James
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Iremonger, T. L. Rawlinson, Peter
Channon, H. P. G. Jackson, John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Chataway, Christopher James, David Rees, Hugh
Chichester-Clark, R. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Renton, David
Clark, William (Nottingham. S.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Cleaver, Leonard Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Ridsdale, Julian
Cole, Norman Joseph, Sir Keith Rippon, Geoffrey
Collard, Richard Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Cooke, Robert Kerby, Capt. Henry Robertson, Sir David
Cooper, A. E. Kirk, Peter Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Lambton, Viscount Roots, William
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Cordle, John Langford-Holt, J. Russell, Ronald
Corfield, F. V. Leburn, Gilmour Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Costain, A. P. Legge-Bourke, Maj. H. Scott-Hopkins, James
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Seymour, Leslie
Critchley, Julian Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shepherd, William
Crowder, F. P. Lilley, F. J. P. Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Cunningham, Knox Linstead, Sir Hugh Skeet, T. H. H.
Curran, Charles Litchfield, Capt. John Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Deedes, W. F. Loveys, Walter H. Smithers, Peter
de Ferranti, Basil Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Spearman, Sir Alexander
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. McAdden, Stephen Speir, Rupert
Doughty, Charles MacArthur, Ian Stevens, Geoffrey
Duncan, Sir James McLaren, Martin Stodart, J. A.
Duthie, Sir William Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Eden, John Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Storey, Sir Samuel
Elliott, R. W. McLean, Neil (Inverness) Studholme, Sir Henry
Emery, Peter MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn McMaster, Stanley Tapsell, Peter
Farey-Jones, F. W. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fell, Anthony Maginnis, John E. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Finlay, Graeme Maitland, Cdr. J. W. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Markham, Major Sir Frank Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Gammans, Lady Marlowe, Anthony Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Gardner, Edward Marshall, Douglas Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Turner, Colin Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) Wise, Alfred
Tweedsmuir, Lady Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
van Straubenzee, W. R. Watts, James Woodhouse, C. M.
Vane, W. M. F. Webster, David Woodnutt, Mark
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John Wells, John (Maidstone) Woollam, John
Vickers, Miss Joan Whitelaw, William Worsley, Marcus
Vosper, Pt. Hon. Dennis Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Sharples.
Ainsley, William Hart, Mrs. Judith Oram, A. E.
Albu, Austen Hayman, F. H. Oswald, Thomas
Awbery, Stan Herbison, Miss Margaret Owen, Will
Bacon, Miss Alice Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hilton, A. V. Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Holman, Percy Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) Houghton, Douglas Paton, John
Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.) Howell, Charles A. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Benson, Sir George Hoy, James H. Peart, Frederick
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pentland, Norman
Blyton, William Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Boardman, H. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Prentice, R. E.
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) Hunter, A. E. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Boyden, James Hynd, H. (Accrington) Proctor, W. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Brockway, A. Fenner Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Rankin, John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Janner, Barnett Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jeger, George Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Ross, William
Carmichael, James Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Short, Edward
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jones, Dan (Burnley) Skeffington, Arthur
Chapman, Donald Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Chetwynd, George Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Small, William
Cliffe, Michael Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Collick, Percy Kenyon, Clifford Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Spriggs, Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) King, Dr. Horace Stones, William
Crosland, Anthony Lawson, George Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Crossman, R. H. S. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Swain, Thomas
Darling, George Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Sylvester, George
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lipton, Marcus Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Deer, George Logan, David Taylor, John (West Lothian)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Loughlin, Charles Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Dempsey, James Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Diamond, John MacColl, James Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Dodds, Norman McInnes, James Timmons, John
Driberg, Tom McKay, John (Wallsend) Wainwright, Edwin
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter McLeavy, Frank Warbey, William
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Watkins, Tudor
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Weitzman, David
Evans, Albert Mahon, Simon Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Finch, Harold Manuel, A. C. Wheeldon, W. E.
Fitch, Alan Mapp, Charles Whitlock, William
Fletcher, Eric Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Wilkins, W. A.
Foot, Dingle Marsh, Richard Willey, Frederick
Forman, J. C. Mason, Roy Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mayhew, Christopher Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Millan, Bruce Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd Mitchison, G. R. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Ginsburg, David Monslow, Walter Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moody, A. S. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gourlay, Harry Morris, John Woof, Robert
Grey, Charles Moyle, Arthur Wyatt, Woodrow
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mulley, Frederick Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Oliver, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Probert and Mr. Redhead.
Division No. 48.] AYES [9.17 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Partridge, E.
Allason, James Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Peel, John
Ashton, Sir Hubert Hay, John Percival, Ian
Balniel, Lord Henderson, John (Cathcart) Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Barber, Anthony Hendry, Forbes Pitman, I. J.
Batsford, Brian Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Pitt, Miss Edith
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Hiley, Joseph Pott, Percivall
Beamish, Col. Tufton Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Powell, J. Enoch
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hobson, John Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) Hocking, Philip N. Prior, J. M. L.
Berkeley, Humphry Holland, Philip Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Bidgood, John C. Holt, Arthur Proudfoot, Wilfred
Biggs-Davison, John Hopkins, Alan Ramsden, James
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bishop, F. P. Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Rees, Hugh
Black, Sir Cyril Hughes-Young, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bossom, Clive Hurd, Sir Anthony Renton, David
Bourne-Arton, A. Hutchison, Michael Clark Ridsdale, Julian
Box, Donald Iremonger, T. L. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Boyle, Sir Edward Jackson, John Robertson, Sir David
Brooman-White, R. James, David Roots, William
Bryan, Paul Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Russell, Ronald
Bullard, Denys Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Scott-Hopkins, James
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Seymour, Leslie
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Joseph, Sir Keith Shepherd, William
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Skeet, T. H. H.
Chichester-Clark, R. Kirk, Peter Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Lambton, Viscount Smithers, Peter
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Leburn, Gilmour Speir, Rupert
Cleaver, Leonard Legge-Bourke, Maj. H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Collard, Richard Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Storey, Sir Samuel
Cooke, Robert Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Studholme, Sir Henry
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Lilley, F. J. P. Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K. Litchfield, Capt. John Tapsell, Peter
Cordle, John Loveys, Walter H. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Corfield, F. V. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) MacArthur, Ian Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Critchley, Julian McLaren, Martin Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Crowder, F. P. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Curran, Charles Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Deedes, W. F. McLean, Neil (Inverness) Turner, Colin
de Ferranti, Basil McMaster, Stanley Tweedsmuir, Lady
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Duncan, Sir James Maginnis, John E. Vane, W. M. F.
Elliott, R. W. Markham, Major Sir Frank Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Emery, Peter Marshall, Douglas Vickers, Miss Joan
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Marten, Neil Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Fell, Anthony Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Watts, James
Finlay, Graeme Mawby, Ray Webster, David
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gammans, Lady Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gardner, Edward Mills, Stratton Wolrige Gordon, Patrick
George, J. C. (Pollok) Montgomery, Fergus Woodhouse, C. M.
Gibson-Watt, David Morgan, William Woodnutt, Mark
Glover, Sir Douglas Motts-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Woollam, John
Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Gerald Worsley, Marcus
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) Nicholls, Harmar
Gresham Cooke, R. Noble, Michael TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimond, J. Page, Graham Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples
Hall, John (Wycombe) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Ainsley, William Cliffe, Michael Forman, J. C.
Awbery, Stan Collick, Percy Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Crosland, Anthony George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Gourlay, Harry
Blackburn, F. Deer, George Grey, Charles
Blyton, William de Freitas, Geoffrey Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Boardman, H. Dempsey, James Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) Diamond, John Hart, Mrs. Judith
Boyden, James Dodds, Norman Hayman, F. H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Herbison, Miss Margaret
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Evans, Albert Hilton, A. V.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Finch, Harold Holman, Percy
Carmichael, James Fitch, Alan Hoy, James H.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Foot, Dingle Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Manuel, A. C. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Mapp, Charles Spriggs, Leslie
Hunter, A. E. Millan, Bruce Stones, William
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Mitchison, G. R. Sylvester, George
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Morris, John Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Janner, Barnett Oswald, Thomas Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Parker, John (Dagenham) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Paton, John Timmons, John
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Peart, Frederick Wainwright, Edwin
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Pentland, Norman Warbey, William
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Prentice, R. E. Watkins, Tudor
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Weitzman, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Probert, Arthur Wheeldon, W. E.
King, Dr. Horace Rankin, John Whitlock, William
Lawson, George Redhead, E. C. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Logan, David Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Ross, William Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
MacColl, James Short, Edward Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
McInnes, James Skeffington, Arthur Woof, Robert
McKay, John (Wallsend) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Yates, Victor (Lady wood)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Small, William
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment: not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time and passed.