HC Deb 27 June 1961 vol 643 cc249-64
Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end to insert: Provided that the amount of the annual Exchequer subsidy shall be not less than twenty-four pounds in the case of any approved dwelling provided for the accommodation of any members of a family residing in a dwelling to which paragraphs (c), (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (2) of section three of the said Act of 1958 or subsection (1) or paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section three of this Act applies and which is overcrowded within the meaning of section seventy-seven of the Housing Act, 1957. This appears to be a rather complicated Amendment, but the short point with which it is designed to deal is what may be popularly called the problem of rehousing the children of overspill. In a number of ways we have tried to find a solution to what we regard as a difficult problem affecting certain areas. Now we have produced this solution as an alternative to some which we discussed during the Committee stage. We propose that the resources test should not apply to local authority housing which is used for certain purposes about which I will say something in a moment. In respect of housing used for these purposes a local authority should get its full subsidy of £24 regardless of the result of a resources test.

The purposes to which we refer are dwellings provided for the accommodation of any members of a family residing in a dwelling to which paragraphs (c), (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (2) of section three of the said Act of 1958 or subsection (1) or paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section three of this Act applies … 6.0 p.m

I will explain what these Sections are. Section 3 (2, c) of the 1958 Act says: … provided by a local authority in the course of a scheme of town development as defined by the Town Development Act. 1952, carried out with the approval of the Minister wholly or partly in the area of that authority; or … Subsection (2, d) says: … provided by a local authority for the accommodation of persons coming from outside the area of that authority in order to meet the urgent needs of industry … Subsection (2, e) says: … provided by the local authority of a congested or overpopulated area in some other area as part of a scheme of comprehensive development the general character of which is … And subsection (2, f) … provided by a development corporation otherwise than in pursuance of authorised arrangements. That is the existing law under the 1958 Act. Subsection (1, a) of Clause 3 of the Bill deals with town development, subsection (1, b) deals with rehousing in another area as part of comprehensive development by the corporation, and subsection (2, a) deals with the urgent needs of industry. The thread running through all of this is the fact that the dwellings are provided to rehouse people in an area other than the area in which they live.

That seems as convenient a way as one can achieve to reach some kind of definition of overspill. It is a narrow definition, because a number of people come into the reception areas other than under one of these schemes and then an even more difficult position might arise.

In order to arrive at some conclusion, we have confined ourselves to those cases which are already recognised in legislation as being special cases. We say that where a dwelling is provided to accommodate people living in overspill areas, then in the cases of those houses that are overcrowded the full subsidy of £24 shall apply and be payable regardless of the resources tests. This affects a number of different types of cases. It arises in a place like Kirkby, for example, and I mentioned this in Standing Committee. This area is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) where this problem is acute. This area has attracted an increase of population comparable with that of a new town and nearly all the houses have been provided by the Liverpool City Corporation to rehouse Liverpool citizens.

The same kind of problem can arise in other areas in which houses have been provided for people coming from the congested areas into the reception areas. In due course these families increase and multiply by the ordinary course of nature. Their children grow up and they, in turn, require additional accommodation. In some cases this creates an extremely difficult problem for the reception area local authority, and where a housing authority has its own housing list, the problem of rehousing its own population exists.

In an area such as Kirkby, where the ownership remains with the Liverpool Corporation, the corporation has a desperate housing problem and needs all the houses that it has to rehouse its own population. In such a case an exceptionally heavy burden is placed on the reception area.

The Minister, in discussing a previous Amendment, said that overspill was a different matter. He said that when talking about the problems of town development and the rehousing of old people. The Minister recognised that there are special problems connected with overspill. Later he made the point that local authorities differ from housing associations inasmuch as they nearly always have a large reserve of pre-war property available to ease the strain on their newly-built houses. In both those respects, the special group to which the Amendment refers comes within the need for protection, for in the first place they are dealing with overspill. This problem is not just one of the area of the housing authority itself. Those who have come in are welcome immigrants into the area. But a special problem is created for a local authority, often with small resources in a small area, which must face the problem of rehousing people who have come from outside its area. That is the thread running through all these cases.

Another reason why they should get special treatment is that an area such as that I have described does not have very much pre-war housing accommodation available because, in the nature of the place, it has either started from scratch or has expanded rapidly. In this connection, I would once again mention Kirkby, which I know well because I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton the pastoral care of the Whiston Rural District. In the short time that I have been connected with that area it has grown enormously, until now it is a large urban district, larger than my own constituency of Widnes. That has all happened within the last ten years.

That sort of problem of growth and the strain it creates is very much like the strain on a new town. But the local urban district councils must tackle this type of problem themselves. They therefore require extra financial assistance because of the very special problems that are involved. While that is one type of case, I do not say that it is the only type. Throughout the country there are many examples where special problems are created by the need to find accommodation for the children of people who have come into an area where no arrangements have been made for providing for the children of those families when they, in their turn, grow up and require accommodation.

We suggest, therefore, in order to take such houses out of the resources test that there should be two requirements: first, that they should be providing accommodation for people living in these dwellings provided for people coming from outside and, secondly, that they should be overcrowded. That does not create problems of definition because the definition is already in the Act. It would seem, therefore, that these arrangements would themselves provide the necessary test, would meet the real need involved and would take a load off the shoulders of a great many authorities.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

I support the Amendment, as an hon. Member who represents one of these reception areas. As I am sure the Minister is aware, a large part of the population of my constituency consists of L.C.C. tenants who live at Becontree Estate. The principal object of my local housing authority has been and is to find homes for the children of these tenants. We have an agreement with the L.C.C. by which a certain number of vacancies are provided, though nothing like the requisite number of houses is allocated. Only a limited number is provided, and of course those houses which are allocated are not necessarily within our boundaries. They may be on any L.C.C. estate, or in some other part of Essex or even in Central London. That means that a large part of our growing population cannot find houses in the neighbourhood unless the council is able to build them, and there is only a limited amount of land on which to build houses. Therefore, a very big problem is involved in trying to house each generation. The L.C.C. is not anxious to hand over its main estates because of the housing problems in London. The L.C.C. wishes to fill any vacancies which do occur with Londoners, which is natural.

Our local housing authority has to give a lot of its attention to trying to provide homes for the children of L.C.C. tenants, and this is a continuing factor because new families come in from the L.C.C. area and they constitute a big charge on local funds. If assistance could be given in the manner proposed by the Amendment it would be a big help in solving our problem. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke

I thought it likely that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) would intervene in the debate on this Amendment, because from my experience as a member of the London County Council I am aware that there are around Landon certain areas which have L.C.C. estates within their boundaries and which find it difficult to cope with the cases of overcrowding that arise.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this Amendment would apply only to houses that are built in the future, and in so far as a local authority has already built houses to provide for overcrowding of that character created by incoming populations, then those existing houses would not qualify.

I have been seeking to understand the argument of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I appreciate the problem which he is trying to solve. He is seeking to find a means of helping a local authority which finds itself burdened with a task for which it does not feel responsible, in that the overcrowding has occurred not among its own aboriginal citizens, so to speak, but among the incoming families. I wonder whether it would be right to try to solve the problem in this way.

The hon. Member for Widnes spoke of the difficulty of an authority such as he had in mind which was, as it were, landed with a large number of houses built under some overspill or industrial scheme, not for the people who had been living in the area all the time. He pointed out that an authority like that might have relatively few pre-war houses and might face big tasks as the families of the newcomers grew up. But I would have judged that it was just that sort of authority which was likely to qualify automatically for the £24 under this Bill. The very fact that it has few prewar houses and that most of its council houses have had to be built at post-war costs will mean that in all probability such an authority will automatically qualify for the £24.

6.15 p.m.

As I read this Amendment, it would only benefit an authority which would otherwise qualify for only the £8, and I should have thought it was an exceptional sort of authority in a situation such as the hon. Member has described that would be likely to qualify for only the £8. The qualification for £8 shows that it has real or potential financial resources of a considerable amount, and I am bound to say that from my analysis of the case the ordinary authority which has had to do most of its building since the war is among the less likely to pass the resources test.

For that reason I doubt whether this Amendment would help those local authorities which the hon. Member is particularly seeking to help in what is not wholly a financial problem. It is a housing problem generally—where to find room for the people. I believe that is a task which the local authority has to assume. I think that in the generality of cases, such a local authority is likely to qualify for the £24.

In any case, I am sure that we should be wrong to legislate as though the people living in those houses which have been built for the newcomers were a separate and special character of person for the whole period of sixty years during which the houses would be subsidised. That is contrary to the social intent of these schemes. People living in new towns do not want the fact to be stressed that they are new townsmen. They want their new towns to become as quickly as possible ordinary and regular towns. Similarly, in all these places there is a general desire that the population should be assimilated and should not be thought of perpetually as strangers and foreigners. This Amendment would make special provision available for a period of sixty years if any overcrowding occurred in those houses.

The hon. Gentleman did not mention the other case which also occurs where overcrowding emerges while the development is still going on. That may well happen, but there again I do not think that this Amendment would help, because if the development is still going on there is no reason why the overcrowding should not be dealt with through ordinary building by the authority which is doing the new building for the newcomers, or by some kind of move or exchange.

If a family becomes overcrowded because more children come along, it is perfectly possible for that family to be moved into a larger house by the authority which is doing the building and which owns the houses, and a new family will come into the house which that family has vacated, in which case both those houses will receive the overspill subsidy. The same is true if, let us say, in a new town the son grows up and marries and wants a house of his own. If he has a job in that new town he will have a reasonable claim on the development corporation for a house, and again both of those houses will receive the overspill subsidy.

The Amendment is directed solely to that case where the local authority in the receiving area for one reason or another does not qualify for more than the £8 subsidy, the reason being that it passes the resources test. This, I think, will be a rare case and I could not advise the Committee to legislate for that case for a period of fifty or more years ahead because I do not think that it would be right to single out that type of house or family for special subsidy treatment.

If the hon. Member for Widnes, who is very knowledgeable about these matters and has great local authority experience, will consider it from the point of view of the local authority, he will appreciate that a queer position would arise forty years hence if of two families, both of which had been living in the area for many years and which had become overcrowded, one should qualify the authority for the £24 rate of subsidy simply because of the people who came into the house when it was built many years before whereas the other would not because the house was a local authority house which had been there all the time.

I appreciate that in places like Dagenham, in the second stage after the people have come in from outside, difficulties in overcrowding occur. One always hopes that the authority, if it is an overspill authority, will look sympathetically at such cases and see whether it can give any assistance. I must advise the Committee that it would not be right to try to solve this social problem of overcrowding occurring in a house which had been built for an incoming family, by enabling the local authority of the area into which the people have come, to qualify automatically for the £24 subsidy if it were to rehouse the second family.

Mr. A. Evans

The Minister granted that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) had presented a case of some merit inasmuch as he agreed that families which went to reception areas did increase and there arose the problem of housing the offspring of the families exported there. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) instanced his own constituency where the problem has been a pressing one for many years. The Minister says that he knows that the problem is there but, he says, in most cases a local authority would qualify under the financial test for the £24. That may well be so in most cases, but there will be the local authority which does not qualify under the financial test for the £24 and receives only the £8.

The Amendment provides that the test would not be applied to receiving authorities which face the problem of overcrowding the subsequent generation. It is designed not to apply the financial test to those authorities in respect of houses built for the new arrivals when the families grow. That is a sound proposition. After all, the financial test is applied at a particular time and, in effect, it determines whether at that time a local authority has sufficient financial resources to fulfil its housing obligations with the lower subsidy rate. In the case put by my hon. Friend, we are not looking at the immediate situation at any one time. We are considering the movement of affairs in the future, the growth of families, and the children who will in due course become adult and require rehousing.

This is a real problem facing local authorities in areas where new towns have been built. The Harlow Urban District Council, for instance, is in difficulty. The new town is populated mainly by people from the Metropolitan area. It is a great success, a credit to the Labour Government who initiated the legislation, but, of course, with the passage of time there has developed the problem of housing the grown-up children of those who went to the new town in the first place.

The Minister should reconsider the position of receiving authorities faced with the problem of overcrowding as a result of new town development or development under a town development scheme and dispense with the financial test. Such authorities have more than just the immediate future to bear in mind. They have to think ahead and plan their housing for the rising generation of young people, always remembering that the number of people in the new generation is likely to be very large in the new towns. I am sure that the problem will grow, as the offspring of the original deportees—to call them such—to the new towns grow to adulthood. If the Minister does not do something about it today, some future Minister with a better grasp of the problem will have to grapple with it.

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Aston)

I represent part of an exporting authority, not an importing authority. The exporting authority is just as interested—to some extent more interested—in the export of tenants from its overcrowded houses as the importing authority is in receiving them.

I will put the particular case of Birmingham, which qualifies for the full subsidy. Sufficient post-war houses have been built in Birmingham to give rise to expense qualifying it for the £24 subsidy, but when Birmingham is negotiating with surrounding authorities, some of these authorities may have a comparatively small amount of post-war housing and a large amount of pre-war houses. They may not qualify for the higher subsidy. If they do not, they will take a long time before they incur the future expense of catering for Birmingham tenants and building houses for them. The Minister should reconsider the matter from that point of view.

If the Minister wishes the overspill problem to be dealt with, he should ensure that the greatest financial inducement is offered to the importing authorities. It is not a matter of helping themselves only; they are helping the overcrowded areas to get rid of their surplus tenants. Therefore, even though an importing authority may not have a large pool of post-war housing, it is at the same time the Minister's job to encourage them to build houses to cater for people rather than allow them to be overcrowded.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I apologise to the Minister because I did not hear all his speech. Judging by what I did hear, I had the impression that he suggests that this is an exceptional or incidental problem to the bigger issue which he faces in the Bill. I urge that it is a much bigger problem than he seems to suggest. It affects more than just Dagenham. It affects Reading. It affects a large part of the south of England. It is very emphatically a problem in Slough, which is part of my constituency.

6.30 p.m.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are a receiving town in two senses. We now have the large L.C.C. estates of Langley and Britwell which are taking people from slum or overcrowded areas in London. We are a receiving town in another sense. I suppose that we are at the moment one of the most prosperous towns in the country, with hundreds of vacancies at the employment exchange. The demand for labour is so great that one firm is offering a bribe to any citizens in Slough who introduce workers to be employed by that firm. Because of this, workers and their families are pouring into Slough, but there is no accommodation to pro- vide for them. The overcrowding in our houses is appalling.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that for a town in that condition the proposal in the Amendment becomes almost critically important. We do not expect under the Bill to reach more than the £8 level. We find it very difficult to find space on which to build. We merely have the space which is provided because Hawker's aerodrome is now becoming available and we shall build a new housing estate there which will necessarily have to include a considerable number of multi-storey buildings. Under conditions of this very critical character, it is tremendously important that some provision such as is suggested in the Amendment should be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. I urge him to reconsider the view which he has expressed and to seek to meet the problem which is illustrated by Slough but which is a problem in many other towns.

Mr. MacColl

My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said that he missed most of the Minister's speech. I assure him that, for those who are students in this exotic and obscure field, we had a piece of vintage Brooke. He began by saying that this Amendment would deal with only a small part of the problem. When I was speaking, I was aware of a sort of ugly murmur behind me which seemed to be saying, "MacColl again being the inadequate, moderate reformist, not producing nearly enough". Then there was the right hon. Gentleman in the van saying, "We are going to do something about this vital problem, but the Amendment would not deal with many bad cases." Then there was a pause while we all got our handkerchiefs out as the right hon. Gentleman said that he grieved for these authorities and for their problem and deeply sympathised with many of the difficulties with which they were faced. We were keyed up for some shattering revelation of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do when the Bill reached another place, but he ended his speech so characteristically by saying, "I cannot advise the Committee to do anything about this at all."

The Minister suggested that our Amendment would not solve this difficult problem. I merely put it to him that he is paid to solve these problems. We are not. If he, with all the resources of skill which he has behind him, cannot solve this problem, he should get out and let someone else have a shot at trying to solve it. He has created the difficult problem of finding accommodation for growing families of people who are moving into these areas and are finding it almost impossible to get accommodation. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to produce an answer to this problem. He cannot merely say that we have not produced an answer.

He told us that if the Amendment were accepted it would mean continuing to pay the subsidy for sixty years when perhaps it was not needed. I dare hardly whisper to him whether he has forgotten Clause 2. He has the brake Clause. He could use it if the need for it arose. He is taking power, much to our regret, to put the brake on. If he is taking it for evil reasons, why cannot he use it for good reasons? This might very well be a good reason for doing it.

We then had the picture that we often get of the right hon. Gentleman in his ivory tower surveying the housing problems of the nation. He told us that practically no authorities which have this problem would qualify for the £8. The resources test would not apply to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said that Slough would find itself getting the £8. Slough will gain from this.

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) also said that at the moment Slough was one of the most prosperous towns in the country. It therefore presumably would

need to draw less on the taxpayers of the nation.

Mr. MacColl

In order to make a contribution to the solution of the problem of overspill in the great congested areas, the right hon. Gentleman has encouraged local authorities to carry out his policy. He has invited them to undertake the responsibility of rehousing overspill population. Difficulties are created by people who come into these areas as welcome arrivals but who, in the normal course of events, create for the local authority in that area extremely difficult problems. We say that the right hon. Gentleman should accept financial responsibility for the results of his policy which local authorities are carrying out and in which they are co-operating.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 155. Noes 209.

Division No. 222.] AYES [6.37 p.m.
Ainsley, William Greenwood, Anthony Mort, D, L.
Albu, Austen Grey, Charles Moyle, Arthur
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mulley, Frederick
Awbery, Stan Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Neal, Harold
Bacon, Miss Alice Grimond, J. Oliver, G. H.
Bence, Cyril Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Padley, W. E.
Benson, Sir George Hamilton, William (West Fife) Parker, John
Boardman, H. Hannan, William Parkin, B. T.
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) Hayman, F. H. Pavitt, Laurence
Bowles, Frank Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Boyden, James Herbison, Miss Margaret Pentland, Norman
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hewitson, Capt. M. Popplewell, Ernest
Brockway, A. Fenner Hill, J. (Midlothian) Prentice, R. E.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Holman, Percy Probert, Arthur
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Holt, Arthur Proctor, W. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Houghton, Douglas Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Randall, Harry
Callaghan, James Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Rankin, John
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Redhead, E. C.
Chapman, Donald Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rhodes, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hunter, A. E. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Crosland, Anthony Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Crossman, R. H. S. Janner, Sir Barnett Ross, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jenkins, Roy (Stetchford) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Short, Edward
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, T. w. (Merioneth) Skeffington, Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kelley, Richard Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Deer, George Kenyon, Clifford Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Delargy, Hugh Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Diamond, John King, Dr. Horace Sorensen, R. W.
Dodds, Norman Lee, Frederick (Newton) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Driberg, Tom Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Steele, Thomas
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Logan, David Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McCann, John Stones, William
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) MacColl, James Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Evans, Albert Mclnnes, James Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Finch, Harold McKay, John (Wallsend) Swain, Thomas
Fletcher, Erie McLeavy, Frank Swingler, Stephen
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Sylvester, George
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Manuel, A. C. Symonds, J. B.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mapp, Charles Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Mason, Roy Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mitchison, G. R. Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Moody, A. S. Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Ginsburg, David Morris, John Thorpe, Jeremy
Timmons, John Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Tomney, Frank White, Mrs. Eirene Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Wade, Donald Wilkins, W. A. Winterbottom, R. E.
Wainwright, Edwin Willey, Frederick
Warbey, William Williams, Ll. (Abertillery) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Watkins, Tudor Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) Mr. Lawson and
Weitzman, David Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Mr. Charles A. Howell.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Godber, J. B. Partridge, E.
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Goodhew, Victor Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Allason, James Gower, Raymond Peel, John
Atkins, Humphrey Grant, Rt. Hon. William Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Barlow, Sir John Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. Pitt, Miss Edith
Barter, John Gresham Cooke, R. Pott, Percivall
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Gurden, Harold Price, David (Eastleigh)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall, John (Wycombe) Prior, J. M. L.
Bell, Ronald Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Berkeley, Humphry Harris, Reader (Heston) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Pym, Francis
Bidgood, John C. Harvie Anderson, Miss Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Biggs-Davison, John Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Rees, Hugh
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Henderson, John (Cathcart) Renton, David
Bishop, F. P. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Black, Sir Cyril Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Bossom, Clive Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Robson Brown, Sir William
Bourne-Arton, A. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Roots, William
Box, Donald Holland, Philip Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Hornby, R. P. Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Boyle, Sir Sdward Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Sharples, Richard
Brewis, John Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Shaw, M.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hughes-Young, Michael Shepherd, William
Bryan, Paul Hutchison, Michael Clark Skeet, T. H. H.
Buck, Antony Iremonger, T. L, Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Bullard, Denys Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Smithers, Peter
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Jackson, Jonn Spearman, Sir Alexander
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) James, David Speir, Rupert
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Stanley, Hon Richard
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Stevens, Geoffrey
Channon, H. P. G. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Chataway, Christopher Joseph, Sir Keith Stodart, J. A.
Chichester-Clark, R. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Kerby, Capt. Henry Storey, Sir Samuel
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Studholme, Sir Henry
Cleaver, Leonard Lancaster, Col. C. G. Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Cole, Norman Langford-Holt, J. Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Cooke, Robert Leavey, J. A. Tapsell, Peter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Lilley, F. J. P. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Corfield, F. V. Linstead, Sir Hugh Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford Litchfield, Capt. John Temple, John M.
Critchley, Julian Longbottom, Charles Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Longden, Gilbert Thornton-Kemsley Sir Colin
Curran, Charles Loveys, Walter H. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Currie, G. B. H. Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Turner, Colin
Dalkeith, Earl of Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Dance, James McAdden, Stephen Tweedsmuir, Lady
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry MacArthur, Ian Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Deedes, W. F. McLaren, Martin Vickers, Miss Joan
de Ferranti, Basil McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Digby, Simon Wingfield Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Doughty, Charles McMaster, Stanley R. Walder, David
du Cann, Edward Maddan, Martin Walker, Peter
Duncan, Sir James Markham, Major Sir Frank Ward, Dame Irene
Duthie, Sir William Marshall, Douglas Whitelaw, William
Eden, John Mawby, Ray Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Mills, Stratton Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Errington, Sir Eric More, Jasper (Ludlow) Wise, A. R.
Fell, Anthony Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Finlay, Graeme Nabarro, Gerald Woodhouse, C. M.
Fisher, Nigel Noble, Michael Woodnutt, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Nugent, Sir Richard Woollam, John
Forrest, Gaorge Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Worsley, Marcus
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Freeth, Denzil Orr-Ewing, C Ian
Gammans, Lady Page, John (Harrow, West) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gardner, Edward Page, Graham (Crosby) Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
Glover, Sir Douglas Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Mr. G. Campbell.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.