§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, at the end to insert:(7) Section one hundred and forty of the principal Act (which requires every local authority to carry, in each financial year, to the credit of the housing repairs account in respect of each house, building and dwelling such amount as they may think proper, not being less than eight pounds) shall have effect in relation to the first financial year beginning after the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and to each subsequent financial year with the substitution for the words "eight pounds" of the words "twelve pounds".This Amendment is a proposed addition to Clause 3 (6), which deals with the provision of the 1950 Act which decides the amount that should be paid by a local authority in respect of each of its houses into its housing repairs account each year. Under the 1950 Act the sum was £4 a year. A few years after that the amount was increased to £8, obviously because it had become insufficient as a result of increasing costs. We contend that we have now reached a point in time when there should be another increase.
I believe that the Government recognise this, but what they are saying, in effect, is that they do not trust local authorities to make a true return. According to subsection (6), if a local authority puts to its housing repairs account £12 per year per house instead of £8, the Secretary of State may debar 478 it from including the additional £4 in the debit side of its housing revenue account and thus he could debar it from qualifying for the £32 subsidy, and the result might be that it would get a subsidy of only £12.
There are very substantial grounds for our case that the amount should be increased automatically as it was previously. I estimate that since the repairs allocation was increased to £8 the cost of repairs has risen by about £75 per cent. The Secretary of State has told us that the average being paid in Scotland is £8 14s. That is already over the figure laid down, and many local authorities are paying much more. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) instanced during the earlier Committee proceedings the Burgh of Dumbarton as paying an average of £11 16s. in repairs, but the actual contribution that the authority is making to its repairs account in respect of each house is 12 guineas per year.
The figures that we have culled from the rating review apply to 1960, and now we are in 1962 and costs have gone up substantially in the meantime. I am sure that hon. Members opposite who are fair-minded would agree that the tendency would be for the figures to have increased because the costs in respect of labour and material for repairing local authority houses have risen.
Taking the 1960 figures, one can pick out the small burghs of Alloa, Barrhead, Irvine and Troon with the figure for repairs per house varying between £11 and £13. Turning to the counties, we have Angus, Caithness, Dunbartonshire, East Lothian, Inverness, Kirkcudbrightshire, Renfrew, Ross and 479 Cromarty, Selkirk and Sutherland paying from £11 to £14 18s. per house for actual repairs. Therefore, we are already well over the figure laid down.
The Scottish Office is well aware of this, but does not want to make it appear to the local authorities that it is raising the figure because of the new formula which has been introduced. I see the Under-Secretary shaking his head. Why does he not allow local authorities to debit their housing revenue accounts with the actual cost? He is not allowing them to put to their housing repair accounts the difference between £8 and what they are actually paying unless he consults them and they can justify it.
Does the hon. Gentleman think that he is dealing with a crowd of school children? He seems to be lining them up in a row and asking them their intentions. This is a besmirching of Scotland's elected representatives, and I am sick and tired of it. It is dreadful. I indict Ministers and Departments. I do not know where this emanates from, but whoever had this brainchild ought thoroughly to be condemned and "given his cards", whether he is an elected representative or otherwise.
The Government are virtually telling the public-spirited men and women who are coming forward for election into local government that they are not to be trusted. This is likely to result in people of a lower calibre coming forward, for what ordinary, decent, straightforward men or women would allow themselves to be treated in this way and held to these rules? It is most disgraceful and shocking that this should be brought into Scottish public life.
§ Mr. Brewis
Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rules are exactly the same whether the figure is £8 or £4, as it was under the Socialist Administration?
§ Mr. Manuel
The thing that I deplore about hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they think in abstract terms and deal with only one part of a problem.
An amount between £8 and £12 or £14 is not to be allowed to count on the debit side of the housing revenue account, as it has hitherto been allowed to count, because this might have an 480 effect in deciding whether a local authority is to get the £32 subsidy or the £12 subsidy. That is the part I deplore. This formula is entirely new, so the hon. Member is off the rails a little.
I think that I have said enough to show our thoughts on this matter. If the Committee wishes to strengthen local authorities, it should show more trust in them. Do not let us destroy the fabric of local government and discourage the men and women who come forward to serve in a selfless way. I hope that the Committee will have regard to the strength of the Amendment and its purpose towards the elected representatives of the people of Scotland on local authorities.
§ Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West)
I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Everything he said has confirmed my view that he has misread the 1950 Act and that the Amendment will not achieve any purpose. Certainly, it would not achieve what the hon. Member claimed for it. Under the 1950 Act, a local authority must put to its housing revenue account a minimum sum of £8. There is no question of a maximum sum. The Bill says that the Secretary of State may disallow that part of the excess which he does not consider to be reasonable.
§ Mr. Hendry
The hon. Gentleman may have said so, but he went on to give figures which belied that understanding of the situation. He told us that the average figure placed to the debit of housing revenue accounts throughout Scotland was not £8 or £12, but £8 14s. That is very much less than the figure he proposes.
§ Mr. Harry Gourlay (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
The hon. Gentleman must realise that the fact that the figure is only £8 14s. is because the Secertary of State gave certain local authorities discretion to charge only £6 per house against the repairs account where the account is in a healthy state.
§ Mr. Hendry
That may be so, but the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is seeking to substitute £12 for £8 when the average figure is £8 14s. That makes nonsense.
§ Mr. Manuel
If the hon. Gentleman studies the rating revenue for 1960, he will see that those local authorities charging only £8—some are charging less—are doing so in a desperate attempt to save rates, but are finding their housing repairs accounts becoming in a parlous condition.
§ Mr. Hendry
The hon. Gentleman is getting into deeper water. The cost of maintaining a house is ascertainable in pounds, shillings and pence, and is not related to any notional figure of £8 or £12 or any other. The figure which a local authority notionally carries to its housing revenue account makes no difference to the rates.
§ Mr. Manuel
That is a monstrous statement. The hon. Gentleman was once a town clerk. He does not know his business. He should resign.
§ Mr. Hendry
The hon. Gentleman then went on to quote what he thought were extreme cases. He mentioned the large burgh of Dumbarton, with a figure of £11 16s. That extreme case is still below the figure of £12, which makes nonsense of the argument for the Amendment. He spoke of figures between £12 and £14 for burghs, admitting that some of them were under £12. The Amendment is nonsensical, because it would allow a debit in a housing revenue account of £12, when the average now is only £8 14s. Only in the most exceptional cases is the figure £12.
§ Mr. Hendry
If a local authority is so ill-advised as to carry as debit a figure which is in excess of its actual expenditure, the Secretary of State, quite rightly, has power to disallow part of it. But an honest local authority—which means 99.5 per cent., I hope, of local authorities—will put in an honest figure and the Secretary of State will not have occasion to use his power. In view of the fact that the Amendment would not only achieve nothing, but is also nonsensical, it should be cast out without further consideration.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Galbraith
I wish that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) were on the Opposition Front 482 Bench again. When he is there his speeches are very much more reasonable than they are when he is, to a certain extent, up in the clouds.
The effect of the Amendment would be, as he said, to raise the minimum contribution of a local authority to its housing repairs account from £8 to £12. As he pointed out, Clause 3 (6) provides that where the Secretary of State considers that a local authority's contribution from its housing revenue account to its housing repairs account is excessive, having regard to its previous practice and to any other circumstances, the excess amount may be excluded from its expenditure for the purposes of the resources test. That is all. It is only excluded for the purpose of the resources test. The expenditure admitted for the resources test cannot be less than the minimum of £8 per house.
It is perhaps worth emphasising, since the hon. Gentleman seems to be in doubt on this, that, if the Secretary of State decides that a local authority's repair contributions are excessive, he need not disregard the whole excess over the minimum of £8. He may admit some amount intermediate between £8 and the actual amount paid out of the housing revenue if the circumstances seem to him to justify this.
The statutory minimum contribution is £8 and the Amendment proposes to increase it to £12. I think that the hon. Gentleman had in mind the fact that, with a statutory minimum contribution of £12 instead of £8, the Secretary of State's scope for disregarding expenditure under subsection (6) would be correspondingly reduced.
§ Mr. Galbraith
I thought that that was probably the reason. As I have said, I think that the hon. Member makes this proposal for a mistaken reason, as the Secretary of State would not automatically out excessive contributions down to the minimum figure.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire also suggested that because costs have increased since the minimum contribution of £8 was laid down in 1952, the minimum ought to be higher today. It is true that costs of maintenance have risen and that the actual contributions by local authorities to their repairs 483 accounts have risen in consequence. But the minimum amount which is mentioned here is indeed the minimum. There is nothing to prevent any local authority from putting into its repairs account whatever money it needs to spend. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates that fact.
A local authority can put in more than £8 if it wishes to do so. If it can show that repairs and maintenance will cost more, it is fully entitled to keep its repairs account in funds by increasing the contribution which it makes to it from the housing revenue account. There is no intention that any such contribution to the repairs account which is genuinely required by reason of increased costs or because of other things—
§ Mr. Galbraith
I thought that would upset the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). If, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, such a contribution is required for the purpose for which it is stated to be required, it will not be disregarded in the resources test calculations. I can give hon. Members opposite a complete assurance on that point.
Nothing in the Bill will prevent a local authority from properly maintaining its houses, nor will it be in any danger of getting a smaller subsidy through carrying out necessary repairs and maintenance. Since the Government are so keen on the proper maintenance of houses, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire may wonder why we refuse to accept the Amendment to raise the minimum contribution from £8 to £12. The reason is quite simple. We agree that the cost of repairs has risen and we also realise that if it rises further the time will come when an increase in the minimum figure will be necessary.
Where the hon. Member and I part company is that I do not think that that time has yet come.
§ Mr. Manuel
Will the hon. Gentleman agree that on-costs and repairs have increased more since the figure of £8 484 was introduced than they did in the few years between the increase from £4 to £8?
§ Mr. Galbraith
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument.
I am saying that the time to increase the minimum contribution has not yet come. I say that because a number of authorities are still able to repair and maintain their houses at an annual cost of less than £8 a house. This is shown by the fact that in 1960–61 no less than 24 applications by local authorities to contribute less than £8 a house to their repairs account were granted by the Secretary of State.
These applications were made under Section 140 (3) of the 1950 Act, which empowers the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local authority, to give a direction for the reduction or suspension of the repairs contribution if he thinks that the sum standing to the credit of the repairs account is more than sufficient for the purposes for which the account is kept. The fact that no less than 24 applications to contribute less than £8 were agreed to by my right hon. Friend indicates that the figure of £8 is not unduly low.
§ If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that more local authorities would have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to contribute less than the proposed figure of £12. Hon, Members opposite must, therefore, realise that the Amendment would force extra work on local authorities by obliging them to make application to the Secretary of State which would be quite unnecessary if things were left as they are.
§ In the Government's opinion, the Amendment is premature. It has been shown that £8 is a sufficient minimum at the moment—and I stress "at the moment". I therefore regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Miss Herbison
The great difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite, including the Under-Secretary of State, is that we trust local authorities, whereas hon. Members opposite continually show by their speeches and their votes that they distrust local authorities and always try to find ways and means of hamstringing them.
485 I wish to take up the final point made by the Minister. He said that the Amendment would only place extra work on local authorities because many of them would ask for permission not to contribute £12 to their repairs accounts. I want to point out what the result will be if the Amendment is not accepted.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said that the Amendment was nonsensical. In Committee we were accustomed to the kind of speech which he made today. I was accustomed to that kind of speech before he came to the House of Commons. I suspect that it was nonsensical of the hon. Gentleman's Government, in 1952, to raise the figure from £4 to £8, particularly in the light of the information which the Minister has given to the effect that more than 20 local authorities in 1960 asked for permission not to contribute as much as £8. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and not put an interpretation on them completely different from that intended by my hon. Friend.
The Minister stated that the figure would remain at £8 for some time. He clearly showed that even he and his officials had their doubts about the wisdom of refusing to accept the Amendment. The figure of £4 was raised to £8 in 1952. Now, ten years later, can the Under-Secretary of State argue that repair costs have not increased since 1952? Of course he cannot. The hon. Gentleman should have tabled an Amendment which at least showed that the Government realise that the cost of repairs to houses has increased in the last few years.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the Secretary of State would not automatically disallow any figure of £8. We know that. He said that 24 applications by local authorities to contribute less than £8 a house to their repairs account were granted. It would have been more useful if he had told us the number of local authorities which have contributed more than £8 a year per house to their
§ accounts, if he could have shown that there was none, or perhaps two; but the numbers have been growing each year. Each year, more and more local authority houses are getting older and need more repairs. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State took that into account.
§ I am sure that every local authority in Scotland would willingly accept the little extra work which would be placed on its officials if the figure of £12 were accepted. That is better than every local authority being put in the invidious position of being treated as though it were dishonest by being told "There is a big increase in the sum that you wish to put into your housing repairs account. My officials at St. Andrew's House will examine that very carefully and only when we have the result of that examination will we decide what to do." This is an attitude to local authorities which has been growing during the last ten years under a Tory Government.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ We on this side have no doubt about why this Clause has been put in the Bill and why there has been resistance to our Amendment. Under the Bill, quite a number of local authorities are to be given a £12 subsidy instead of one of £24. Which are the local authorities? They are those local authorities which, in the Minister's own words, have a big pool of houses which were built when the subsidies were higher; and if that is so. they are older houses and need much more repair.
§ If the Under-Secretary of State continues to resist the Amendment, we feel, and, I think, rightly, that this part of the Clause will be used as a weapon by the Government to ensure that those local authorities which are to get the £12 subsidy will be prevented from going up into the £32 subsidy category. We have no doubt about that, and it is for these reasons that we intend to vote on this Amendment.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 215.489
|Division No. 146.]||AYES||[5.1 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Beaney, Alan||Braddock, Mrs. E. M.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Benson, Sir George||Brockway, A. Fenner|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Blackburn, F.||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.|
|Awbery, Stan||Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Bowles, Frank||Callaghan, James|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Boyden, James||Castle, Mrs. Barbara|
|Chapman, Donald||Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Rankin, John|
|Cliffe Michael||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Reid, William|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Keller, Richard||Rhodes, H.|
|Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||King, Dr. Horace||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Deer, George||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Rosa, William|
|Dempsey, James||Loughlin, Charles||Short, Edward|
|Diamond, John||Lubbock, Eric||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Dodds, Norman||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||McInnes, James||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Small, William|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||McLeavey, Frank||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Snow, Julian|
|Evans, Albert||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Finch, Harold||Manuel, Archie||Steele, Thomas|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Mapp, Charles||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Forman, J. C.||Marsh, Richard||Stones, William|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mellish, R. J.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Mendelson, J. J||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Millan, Bruce||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Ginsburg, David||Milne, Edward||Taverne, D.|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mitchlson, G. R.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Monslow, Walter||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Moyle, Arthur||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Grey, Charles||Neal, Harold||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Hannan, William||Oliver, G. H.||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Harper, J.||Oram, A. E.||Timmons, John|
|Hart, Mrs. Judith||Oswald, Thomas||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Healey, Denis||Owen, Will||Warbey, William|
|Herbison, Miss Margaret||Padley, W. E.||Weitzman, David|
|Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Paget, R. T.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Holt, Arthur||Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Whitlock, William|
|Houghton, Douglas||Pargiter, G. A.||Willey, Frederick|
|Hoy, James H.||Parker, John||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pavitt, Laurence||Williams, LI. (Abertillery)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Hunter, A. E.||Peart, Frederick||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Pentland, Norman||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Popplewell, Ernest||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||Prentice, R. E.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Jeger, George||Probert, Arthur|
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Proctor, W. T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Randall, Harry||Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Cary, Sir Robert||Farr, John|
|Aitken, W. T.||Channon, H. P. G.||Finlay, Graeme|
|Allason, James||Chataway, Christopher||Fisher, Nigel|
|Arbuthnot, John||Chichester-Clark, R.||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Cleaver, Leonard||Freeth, Denzil|
|Balniel, Lord||Collard, Richard||Gammans, Lady|
|Barber, Anthony||Cooper, A. E.||George, J. C. (Pollok)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Gilmour, Sir John|
|Barter, John||Corfield, F. V.||Glover, Sir Douglas|
|Batsford, Brian||Costain, A. P.||Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)|
|Bell, Ronald||Coulson, Michael||Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Goodhart, Philip|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Craddock, Sir Beresford||Goodhew, Victor|
|Biffen John||Curran, Charles||Gower, Raymond|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Dalkeith, Earl of||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Dance, James||Green, Alan|
|Bishop, F. P.||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||de Ferranti, Basil||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)|
|Bossom, Clive||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)|
|Box, Donald||Doughty, Charles||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.||Drayson, G. B.||Hastings, Stephen|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||du Cann, Edward||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Brewis, John||Duncan, Sir James||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Brooman-White, R.||Eden, John||Hendry, Forbes|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Hobson, Sir John|
|Bryan, Paul||Emery, Peter||Holland, Philip|
|Bullard, Denys||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Hollingworth, John|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Errington, Sir Eric||Hopkins, Alan|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Hornby, R. P.|
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dams P.||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Howard. John (Southampton, Test)||Morrison, John||Speir, Rupert|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Stodart, J. A.|
|Hughes-Young, Michael||Nabarro, Gerald||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Hurd, Sir Anthony||Neave, Airey||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Noble, Michael||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|James, David||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Talbot, John E.|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Tapsell, Peter|
|Jennings, J. C.||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Temple, John M.|
|Kerby, Capt. Henry||Page, John (Harrow, West)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Kimball, Marcus||Percival, Ian||Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Peyton, John||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Leavey, J. A,||Pitman, Sir James||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Leburn, Gilmour||Pott, Percivall||Turner, Colin|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Lindsay, Sir Martin||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Linstead, Sir Hugh||Pym, Francis||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Litchfield, Capt. John||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Longbottom, Charles||Ramsden, James||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Longden, Gilbert||Rawlinson, Peter||Walder, David|
|Loveys, Walter H,||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute& N. Ayrs.)||Rees, Hugh||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Renton, David||Whitelaw, William|
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|McMaster, Stanley R.||Ridsdale, Julian||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Maddan, Martin||Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Maginnis, John E.||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Maitland, Sir John||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Wise, A. R.|
|Marlowe, Anthony||Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Marshall, Douglas||Russell, Ronald||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Scott-Hopkins, James||Woollam, John|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Seymour, Leslie||Worsley, Marcus|
|Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.||Shaw, M.|
|Mills, Stratton||Skeet, T. H. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Miscampbell, N.||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)||Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Smithers, Peter|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.