HC Deb 04 April 1962 vol 657 cc459-77
Mr. John Robertson (Paisley)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end to insert: plus twenty-five pounds for every one per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeds three per cent.". The purpose of the Amendment is to try to relate the subsidy to be paid under the Clause to the actual cost of financing the building of houses. We are all aware that the actual cost of building accounts for only a fraction of the total costs involved in house financing. Even if we accept the argument, advanced by the Government in the White Paper, that an income of £53 per house per year from rents and rates is reasonable, this still leaves costs of about £120 per house built per year to be met from somewhere or other. The subsidy proposed in the Clause leaves a deficit of £78, perhaps £80, per house per year. It is not suggested where this money is to come from.

We have been told many times that the Government's proposals are based on spreading the deficiency over the whole stock of existing houses, but what will happen in practice? In Paisley, rents and rates already account for £57 10s. per house per year. This is above what the Secretary of State said is reasonable. Consequently, the added burden on the town council for each new house built under the provisions of the Clause must either be spread over all the ratepayers or confined to the council tenants by increasing the rent. I have never been able to accept the idea of pooling housing costs and spreading them over the stock of existing houses. It is a mistaken idea. It fails to take into account many factors, such as the age of the oldest houses and the higher costs of maintenance of older houses. It tends, too. to establish a uniformity of rent. It creates a lack of flexibility in dealing with local authority problems.

Whatever one may say about that matter, these arguments can certainly not be applied to development corporations and only in a very modified way to the Scottish Special Housing Association. What the Government propose to do in the Clause is to squeeze the tenants as hard as they can, and then to meet the remaining deficiencies of the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association by applying a hidden subsidy in meeting the deficiency of these two bodies.

Because of the lack of time, I shall restrain myself. One of the difficulties in dealing with this subject under the Guillotine is that one cannot develop the point as one would like. There are so many Amendments to be considered that the time available is only 20 minutes to each Amendment. This is a preposterous situation. That being the position, I shall not give a long explanation of the figures in the Amendment, but will only say that the effect would be to keep static the cost to local authorities, development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and so avoid putting an extra burden on the ratepayers or on the tenants.

The Amendment would also help the problems of importing authorities by not placing a tremendous new burden on small local authorities, and it would also, perhaps, help to speed up Glasgow's overspill. The Amendment would do much to provide the kind of flexibility about which the Under-Secretary has been talking during the last two or three weeks. The only difference is that his kind of flexibility has been all the one way—a flexibility that would give him the right to reduce subsidies. We believe that, where the circumstances warrant it, local authorities should have added subsidies.

The effect of the Amendment would be to increase the subsidy to such a figure as to provide that the rent and rate contribution would be at the £53 or £54 per annum level that the Government desire. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will see the logic of the mathematics, and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) is an optimist in asking the Minister to exercise some degree of flexibility, because that is the last thing I would ever dream of expecting from the the Under-Secretary. The Amendment, if it were accepted, would certainly help to stimulate the rate of municipal house building in the county in which the Minister himself resides, and I am quite sure that he would have to pay less in rates if that local authority were able to get a lower rate of interest for its house building.

The Amendment talks about … twenty-five pounds for every one per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeds three per cent. In the counties and the burghs there is certainly a great deal of feeling about the high rate of interest which, for example, constitutes an almost insuperable barrier to the County of Ayr and the town councils of Kilmarnock and other places building as they would wish.

Members of local authorities ask us very difficult questions about the rate of interest. The Amendment speaks of 3 per cent. We were recently told that the Government were borrowing a considerable sum of money from the International Monetary Fund and from the Government of Switzerland at that rate. Some members of local authorities wanted me to ask the Minister to put them in touch with the International Monetary Fund, or even with the Government of Switzerland, so that they might discover whether they, too, could borrow money at the very reasonable rate of 3 per cent.

I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to disappoint me by showing his flexibility in accepting the Amendment, and so helping the local authorities in the area in which he resides to go forward with the housing that is so badly needed there.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

The purpose of the Amendment is to give a stimulus to local authorities to proceed with house building on a much greater scale, which the figures produced in the Housing Review for Scotland show to be more than ever necessary. In that document we find that between 1955 and the end of 1961 the number of houses built by local authorities had fallen from 29,278 to 19,541.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that added encouragement must be given to local authorities to build houses. If he does not believe that the rate of interest payable at present is a deterrent to house building policies, he should look at the replies given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to our Parliamentary Questions. Over the past three months the right hon. Gentleman has said that nearly half of the Scottish local authorities are not building any houses at all. That is a shameful state of affairs in a country which, in my view, is at present about the worst housed in Europe.

By encouraging local authorities to play their part in what is still Scotland's No. 1 social service—municipal housing—we will be fulfilling our responsibility, and I could not think of a better inducement to them than acceptance of the terms of the Amendment. Local authorities are at present having to pay quite prodigious interest rates. It is not simply a rate of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.—the rate is at least 6¾ per cent.—and one has only to follow that transaction over the sixty years' life of a house to realise the devastating effect of high rates of interest on local authority housing revenue accounts.

If the Under-Secretary does that, he will find that at the completion of the financial term the houses cost, on an average, anything from two-and-a-half to three times the actual building cost. I know that I am being rather conservative in quoting such a figure, but I give it as an average. There is no doubt that some houses cost very much more over the sixty years.

I can vividly recall that when the interest rate was increased by 2 per cent. some local authorities decided to take strike action, and stopped building. The Under-Secretary might call those "wildcat" strikes, but one local authority was controlled by his party. As a protest against such prodigious financial burdens being imposed on the local ratepayers, it elected not to build any houses at that time. That indicates the effect of the interest rates on the outlook of local authorities.

The Secretary of State was asked by me whether he could make a comparison between the interest rates of 1951 and 1961; and what would be their effect on present-day costs of building. He replied: Annual loan charges on these 1961 costs would, at 6¾ per cent., be greater by the following amounts than at 3¾ per cent. in 1951; 3-apartment—£54 16s.; 4-apartment—£59 11s. 4d.; 5-apartment—£68 13s. 10d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 148.] That shows the extra we are paying in interest rates for the houses we are building. If the Under-Secretary cares to multiply that figure by 60 he will have a good idea of the crippling effect high interest charges have on the housing revenue accounts of Scottish local authorities.

How are we to tackle the problem? What must we do to redress this financial disadvantage? It would seem that we must make a financial contribution to local authorities so that they can overcome this serious economic problem and proceed with their house-building programmes. The Amendment would serve an extremely useful purpose in this respect, and, for that reason, I support it. Its object is clear, for it is designed to give authorities a stimulus and encourage them to proceed with enthusiasm and greater velocity—and, indeed, with more imagination—with their house-building programmes. Goodness gracious, if any part of the United Kingdom requires large-scale housing expansion, that part is Scotland.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will realise that the Amendment does not have a mischievous intent. Its object is to provide a financial inducement without which local authorities in Scotland will not be able to provide the housing needs of the people we represent. If the Government are genuinely keen to solve this problem, the Amendment provides one method of doing so. I hope that the Under-Secretary will see it in that light and will realise that the Amendment could be a boon to Scotland.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)

The Amendment seems to give a subsidy to certain houses built for overspill and other purposes under Clause 2 (1). The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) seemed to consider that the Amendment would extend to all houses built by local authorities and I believe that once the Amendment became law it would be difficult to differentiate between the conflicting needs of overspill and other local authority housing needs.

The Amendment appears to insulate the building of a house costing £2,500 from the increased Bank Rate because 1 per cent. of £2,500 is £25. To my way of thinking, local authority houses, in many cases, cost less than £2,500 and, therefore, there is an element in the Amendment of a concealed subsidy, even over and above allowing for high interest rates. Once one allows this idea. that housing should be able to contract out of the economic policy of the country, one is in difficulty. I notice that Sir Stafford Cripps, as long ago as 1948, said that the rates of interest charged to local authorities were fixed from time to time to correspond broadly with Government borrowing rates for a comparable period.

Expenditure by local authorities on capital account is about one-fifth of the expenditure of the country and, therefore, if favourable interest rates were given to them it would, to a certain extent, nullify the economic policy of the country as a whole and some money would have to be raised either by taxation or inflation. I do not say that interest rates are not an important matter in the provision of houses, but it is relevant to quote from the Toothill Report, paragraph 1724 of which stated: It was claimed by some local authorities that high rates of interest are a serious factor in housing finance. The great bulk of local authority houses were, however, built at low rates of interest so that current high rates have a small effect on total costs. Against the rent factor, the burden of current interest rates is small. We must keep a sense of proportion about this and, for that reason, I object to the Amendment.

Mr. J. Robertson

The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) quoted from the Toothill Report. May I draw his attention to the opening words of his speech, when he referred to overspill, which, of course, has a bearing on the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. Will the hon. Member relate his arguments to the accounts of this Association and the development corporations?

Mr. Brewis

I was pointing out that once we started giving an extra subsidy for overspill it would be difficult to stop there, for we would have to extend it to other types of expenditure by local authorities, including that on water and on old people's homes.

Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)

If an hon. Member who was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill but who has tried to follow the proceedings—and it is important that all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies should express their views—wishes to join the debate at this point, may I say that the Amendment is an extremely interesting one because it raises the whole issue of the effect of interest rates on local authority housing, in whole or in part, and the question whether or not it is right to offset that effect in any way. As the hon. Member for Galloway asked: is it or is it not a good thing to discriminate between housing and other economic activities? We are perfectly clear about this; we are clear that it may be a good thing to do so. I would be surprised if the Leader of the House, whom I see in his place, would take the view that it is really wise to put the Government in a position of opposition to any form of discrimination as between one kind of economic activity and another.

Surely any element of planning, even financial planning, must result in the Government paying attention—even though this Government only pays lip-service to planning—to precisely this process of discrimination, although, apparently, that shocks the hon. Member for Galloway. My hon. Friends and I believe in discrimination between one kind of economic activity and another. We certainly do so regarding Scottish housing where it is desperately needed and where some sort of discrimination is necessary in favour of this economic activity.

Surely that is the principle here involved. It can be achieved by giving specially low rates of interest. But, if the Government will not do that, they can offset the high general rates of interest by special housing subsidies. That is a rather roundabout way of doing it, but it is quite possible. That is the issue of principle. What reason can there be for not doing that?

The hon. Member for Galloway produced the argument that interest rates do not affect housing. That, of course, contradicts the whole of the earlier part of his speech, in which he implied that interest rates were an overwhelmingly important factor facing local authorities. That is, of course, true and everyone knows it. The rate of interest is, of course, an enormously important factor when considering highly durable goods like a house.

We believe that Scottish housing, above all, must be exempted in one way or another from the general restrictionist policy of the Government. That is the issue I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with, because it is the only real issue of principle to be faced, and the Amendment brings it out in an acute form. We would like to see this matter dealt with clearly and as a matter of principle.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

As the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) has just come into the Chamber, I should say—I would have said it, in any event—that I am a considerable recipient of subsidies. But I have never failed to state publicly, in this Chamber and on many occasions outside it, that it is a good principle to have no more subsidies than are absolutely necessary and that that policy, in my industry also, should be directed to doing what the Bill tries to do, which is to put subsidies where they are most needed.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

On to the hon. Member's farm?

Mr. Stodart

That is a matter for discussion.

The Amendment calls for a fairly stiff increase in the rate of subsidy. Although I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that a stimulant is necessary in house building of all kinds in Scotland, there are two weaknesses in that line of approach.

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), despite all the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), that there should not be discrimination between loans for house building. I have not heard one argument which has convinced me that we should isolate this sector from the ordinary free market rate of borrowing. Why not have cheap loans for public services of all kinds, including gas, electricity and all sorts of undertakings? The hon. Member for Fife, West has never failed, in any debate in Committee upstairs on this Housing Bill, to mention the farming industry. Why I cannot quite think. He has said more than once that we are virtually publicly owned.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I have never said that the farming industry was publicly owned. I said that it was publicly financed.

Mr. Stodart

The hon. Member has certainly said that we ought to be publicly owned. If that is the case, I might ask: why not have cheap loans for farming? The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie has mentioned what he calls the cruel rate of interest of 6¾ per cent. I had a much more cruel one of 8 per cent. not long ago.

Mr. Ross

Is the prevailing rate of interest on capital for agriculture taken into account in the determination of the needs of the industry?

The Chairman

Order. The Committee is in danger of turning this into an agricultural debate, which would be out of order on the Amendment.

Mr. Stodart

I am sorry, Sir William, for straying. I was tempted to go a little further.

The second weakness in the Amendment is that however we achieve what hon. Members opposite want, whether by cheap loans, by higher subsidies, or by discrimination of one kind or another, somebody must pay for manipulating the market. That somebody is the taxpayer. One has to strike a point of balance between the advantage to house building and the cost to the taxpayer. Subsidies are invariably a blunt weapon and they have little precision about them wherever they are used. For that reason, I do not support the Amendment.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

We have had some curious economic arguments this afternoon. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) seems to me to be completely misinformed about housing subsidies, in which there are all sorts of differences. One of the arguments of the Government for increasing the present housing loan interest and keeping it high is that the local authority can spread the increase over all the other interest rates when some of the loans are obtained at cheaper rates.

In effect, therefore, there is already discrimination in interest rates by the Government. Older loans are charged at less than the new loans, which will be charged for about sixty years at the present rate even if interest rates come down. This is certainly a method by which the Government reduce subsidies to local authorities by increasing their interest rates.

The idea that the Government borrow money from farmers and others to lend to local authorities is so much "hooey"—

Mr. Stodart

I did not suggest that.

Mr. Woodburn

But the farmers are being investors. When they get these big profits, they must do something with them and they do not invest them all in Government loans. Presumably, however, some of the money finds its way back to the Government in loans.

In any event, that is not where the bulk of the money comes from. It is created by the banking institutions and it costs the Government only the amount that is necessary to administer these loans over sixty years. This is not something which is borrowed from the public in order to lend to the local authorities. It is a method by which the Government are increasing the charge for a loan service for sixty years. It is a method by which the local authorities are made to pay a higher proportion of the cost of a house than formerly.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is quite right. The houses have to be paid for either by the tenant, the local authority or the Government. A constant struggle goes on about who should pay most. The Government use all sorts of tricks to see that more goes on to the local authority or to compel the local authority to push more on to the tenant. What has to be settled is not all this academic business about the cost of loans, but the question of what are the fair proportions as between tenant, local authority and Government. That is the argument which is presented by the Amendment.

The Government are increasing the cost to the local authority and, through the local authority, to the tenant by subterfuges of talking about market interest rates and things of that kind. This is a matter of Government decision. The Government can decide what proportion is to be paid by themselves, by the local authority and by the tenant. That is done by different methods, of which the subsidy is one and the rate of interest another. It would be far better if the Government were straight and honest and stopped all this humbug about interest and decided what proportion would be paid. Then, the public, the tenants and the local authorities would know where they stood.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

We have had an interesting debate on the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson). Its effect would be to increase the rate of subsidy for overspill houses or houses provided by the new town development corporations or the Scottish Special Housing Association by £25 for every 1 per cent. by which the prevailing rate of interest exceeded 3 per cent. It would accordingly tie the overspill rate of subsidy to the prevailing rate of interest, which, presumably, is the Public Works Loan Board rate.

The Amendment is an attempt to introduce the conception that subsidies should be increased to compensate for increases in the interest rates.

Mr. Woodburn

Is that not exactly what the Home Secretary did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he increased the subsidies in his first Budget?

Mr. Galbraith

I do not think that he did it in the way proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn

But he did it.

Mr. Galbraith

The Amendment is an attempt to introduce the conception that subsidies should be increased to compensate for increases in interest rates. As the Committee will know, this is a very old hare which has been chased on many occasions. I do not think that hon. Members opposite—certainly not the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who has the honour to represent me in Parliament—will be a bit surprised to hear that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

As has been explained on very many occasions, the Government take the view that, as the rate of interest reflects the economic situation, there is no reason why local authorities, as regards housing or other services, should be exempt from the economic trends which are reflected in the rates of interest they are called upon to pay for the money they require in order to build their houses. In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) pointed out, how could such a policy be limited just to overspill housing?

I thought that my hon. Friend answered very well the point made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey)—whom we are glad to have with us this afternoon. Once this policy was adopted for overspill housing, why not for all housing subsidies? Indeed, why not for a good many other services, such as water and electricity? A similar insulation from increases in interest rates might be claimed for such services on the same grounds as have been used in this debate in respect of housing. The Amendment cuts across the whole economic policy of the Government. It is unacceptable for that reason.

Moreover, the Amendment bears little relation to the actual practice of local authorities in borrowing. Although the cost of local authority housing is usually financed over a period of sixty years, the initial borrowing will usually be for a very much shorter period. It is, therefore, completely wrong to assume, as hon. Members in advocating the Amendment seem to assume, that local authorities will continue to pay interest for sixty years at the rate prevailing when the subsidy approval was first given. What most large local authorities do is to maintain a consolidated loans fund under which the cost of borrowing borne by the new services is not the cost of raising new money, but the average cost of all outstanding loans.

Mr. Dempsey

That is not what the Secretary of State seems to say.

Mr. Galbraith

That is what happens in fact. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who has a great deal of experience of local government affairs, must be aware of that. These internal borrowing rates have, admittedly, risen in recent years, but they are still normally less than five per cent., which is well below the P.W.L.B. rate.

I need hardly add that, besides being unacceptable on grounds of principle, the Amendment would raise the subsidy under Clause 2 to an unreasonably high level. At the present Public Works Loan Board rate of interest, it would add £75 to the subsidy rate of £42. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to accept a subsidy rate of £117—which is what it would amount to—over sixty years, or nearly three times the rate payable under existing legislation.

Mr. J. Robertson

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee the position of the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and what the actual subsidy is per house built by a development corporation taking into consideration the grant made by the Government towards deficiencies?

Mr. Galbraith

I cannot do it "off the cuff". If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have that information, I can easily find out for him.

As so often happens, the good hearts of hon. Members opposite seem to be ruling their heads. What they suggest in this Amendment is really impossible. Interesting and ingenious though it is, I must tell them that the Government cannot possibly accept it.

4.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison

The Minister's reply is not surprising. When he has no case at all, he accuses us of letting our hearts rule our heads. What we intend by the Amendment is to ensure that more and more desperately needed houses are built in Scotland. To look at only part of it, overspill, and relate that to the need in Glasgow, one sees how forcibly the need for additional subsidy is shown.

It has been interesting to hear the back benchers on the Government side. During the Committee stage and today we have heard from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mar. Brewis) why the Government cannot accept our Amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) amused me. He said that subsidies were a blunt weapon and, because they were a blunt weapon, he was against them. It has been evident throughout our consideration of the Bill that he has been against reasonable subsidies for housing, but I wish that he carried that strong principle into his attitude to farming. If he did, he would not want the kind of subsidies that many farmers receive today. I shall be able to believe that he is really in earnest about this blunt instrument when he speaks in an agriculture debate and says that he will vote against the farming subsidy on that ground.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Galloway both said that the rate of interest reflects the economic situation of the Whole country. Year after year, of course, our economy has under this Government sunk further into the mire. We do not quarrel with that description from the Minister, but we do quarrel with him when he says that it is vital that local authority housing should not be insulated against what he calls the prevailing economic situation. This is a heartless attitude on the part of the Government. We have had evidence of it throughout the whole Committee stage proceedings.

Have the Government ever said that industry generally—I leave farming out of it now—cannot be insulated against the high rate of interest or against the prevailing economic situation? What happened to Colvilles? If the Government were to apply to Colvilles what they have rigidly applied in the matter of subsidies and interest rates for housing, Colvilles would be in a much more difficult position today. What about the motor car industry? I am not quite sure, but I suspect that the Government are by their help insulating that industry—for very worth-while purposes; I do not complain in the least—against the prevailing economic situation. The whole argument advanced by the Minister and the Member for Galloway falls when we find that in other sectors

the Government have done what we are asking them to do for Scottish housing.

The Minister said that the Amendment would raise the subsidy to an unreasonably high level. We had worked out, of course, that it would mean a £75 increase, but we regard that as absolutely necessary if we are to have the number of houses we need, and absolutely necessary, also, even if the average gross annual value is charged as the rent. In other words, in asking for this subsidy we are not in any way supporting low rents in Scotland.

I could have adduced other arguments, but we are pressed for time and I will content myself with adding that we must vote against the Government's attitude on this matter and for our Amendment.

Mr. J. Robertson

The Under-Secretary has not answered the points at all. The Clause deals particularly with development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and we are asking that the Government subsidy be paid to these two bodies. The Public Accounts Committee investigated the accounts of the Scottish Special Housing Association and the development corporations, and the hon. Gentleman will find that the grants made by the Government to meet the deficiencies add up to this amount. The realistic situation of Scottish housing is that a subsidy of £117 is required so that houses can be let at rents that people can afford.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153. Noes 208.

Division No. 145.] AYES [4.21 p.m.
Abse, Leo Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Forman, J. C.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cronin, John Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Cullen, Mrs. Alice Galpern, Sir Myer
Awbery, Stan Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Ginsburg, David
Bacon, Miss Alice Davies, Ifor (Gower) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Gourlay, Harry
Beaney, Alan Deer, George Grey, Charles
Benson, Sir George Dempsey, James Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Blackburn, F. Diamond, John Hannan, William
Blyton, William Dodds, Norman Harper, Joseph
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leice, S. W.) Driberg, Tom Hart, Mrs. Judith
Bowles, Frank Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Healey, Denis
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Boyden, James Ede, Rt. Hon. C Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Edelman, Maurice Holman, percy
Brockway, A. Fenner Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Houghton, Douglas
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Hoy, James H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Evans, Albert Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Callaghan, James Fernyhough, E. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Finch, Harold Hunter, A, E.
Cliffe, Michael Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Monslow, Walter Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Janner, Sir Barnett Moyle, Arthur Small, William
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Neal, Harold Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Jeger, George Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Oliver, G. H. Spriggs, Leslie
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Oram, A. E. Steele, Thomas
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Oswald, Thomas Stones, William
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Owen, Will Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.) Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Pargiter, G. A. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Kelley, Richard Parker, John Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Pavitt, Laurence Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
King, Dr. Horace Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Peart, Frederick Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Pentland, Norman Timmons, John
Loughlin, Charles Prentice, R. E. Wainwright, Edwin
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Warbey, William
McInnes, James Probert, Arthur Weitzman, David
McKay, John (Wallsend) Randall, Harry Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Rankin, John Whitlock, William
McLeavy, Frank Redhead, E. C. Willey, Frederick
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Reid, William Williams, D. J. (Neath)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Rhodes, H. Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Manuel, Archie Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mapp, Charles Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Marsh, Richard Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Winterbottom, R. E.
Mellish, R. J. Ross, William Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mendelson, J. J. Short, Edward Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Millan, Bruce Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Milne, Edward Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mitchison, G. R. Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Drayson, G. B. James, David
Aitken, W. T. Duncan, Sir James Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Arbuthnot, John Eden, John Jennings, R. C.
Ashton, Sir Hubert Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Balniel, Lord Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) Kerby, Capt. Henry
Barber, Anthony Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Barlow, Sir John Errington, Sir Eric Kershaw, Anthony
Barter, John Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Kimball, Marcus
Batsford, Brian Farr, John Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Berkeley, Humphry Finlay, Graeme Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Fisher, Nigel Leburn, Gilmour
Biffen, John Fletcher, Cooke, Charles Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Biggs-Davison, John Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Lindsay, Sir Martin
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Freeth, Denzil Linstead, Sir Hugh
Bishop, F. P. Gammans, Lady Litchfield, Capt. John
Black, Sir Cyril George, J. C. (Pollok) Longbottom, Charles
Bossom, Clive Gilmour, Sir John Longden, Gilbert
Bourne-Arton, A. Glover, Sir Douglas Loveys, Walter H.
Box, Donald Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Lubbock, Eric
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)
Brewis, John Goodhart, Philip McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Brooman-White, R. Goodhew, Victor Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Gower, Raymond MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr, R. McMaster, Stanley R.
Bryan, Paul Green, Alan Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Bullard, Denys Gresham Cooke, R. Maddan, Martin
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Maginnis, John E.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Maitland, Sir John
Cary, Sir Robert Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Marlowe, Anthony
Channon, H. P. G. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Marshall, Douglas
Chataway, Christopher Hastings, Stephen Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Chichester-Clark, R. Hay, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Cleaver, Leonard Henderson, John (Cathcart) Mills, Stratton
Collard, Richard Hendry, Forbes Miscampbell, N.
Cooper, A. E. Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Montgomery, Fergus
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hobson, Sir John More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Corfield, F. V. Holland, Philip Morrison, John
Costain, A. P. Hollingworth, John Nabarro, Gerald
Coulson, Michael Holt, Arthur Neave, Alrey
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hopkins, Alan Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Craddock, Sir Beresford Hornby, R. P. Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Critchley, Julian Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Curran, Charles Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Dalkeith, Earl of Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Page, Graham (Crosby)
Dance, James Hughes-Young, Michael Page, John (Harrow, West)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hurd, Sir Anthony Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Hutchison, Michael Clark Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Peel, John
Doughty, Charles Jackson, John Percival, Ian
Peyton, John Seymour, Leslie Turner, Colin
Pitman, Sir James Shaw, M. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Pott, Percivall Skeet. T. H. H. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Smithers, Peter Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Speir, Rupert Walder, David
Pym, Francis Stodart, J. A. Ward, Dame Irene
Quennell, Miss J. M. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Wells, John (Maidstone)
Ramsden, James Storey, Sir Samuel Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Studholme, Sir Henry Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Rees, Hugh Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Rees-Davies, W. R. Talbot, John E. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Tapsell, Peter Wise, A. R.
Ridsdale, Julian Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Temple, John M. Woodnutt, Mark
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Woollam, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.) Thomas, Peter (Conway) Worsley, Marcus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Russell, Ronald Thorpe, Jeremy Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
Scott-Hopkins, James Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Mr. Noble.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.