HC Deb 09 May 1962 vol 659 cc579-95

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).


Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate and facilitate the construction and secure the safe operation of pipe-lines and make provision for matters arising thereout; and to provide that certain pipe-lines shall be plant or machinery for the purpose of the enactments relating to rating in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
    1. (a) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Minister of Power which, by virtue of subsection (3) of section three of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, are defrayed out of such moneys;
    2. (b) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-efficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local Government in England and Wales or in Scotland;
  2. (2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the said Act of the present Session by a Minister of the Crown other than the Postmaster General.—[Mr. Wood.]

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

In the concluding passage of his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Attorney-Attorney impressed upon the House the very great importance of the legislation which the House was then being invited to pass. The Bill has got its Second Reading, and we move on to the consideration of the Money Resolution. Presumably, the Money Resolution required for the Bill, this terribly important Bill, is also very important, and that being so I would have expected the Minister to have had some words to say to us in explanation of its provisions. I am not very good at understanding Money Resolutions.

I read in this one, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate and facilitate the construction and secure the safe operation of pipe-lines and make provision for matters arising thereout; and to provide that certain pipelines shall be plant or machinery for the pur- pose of the enactments relating to rating in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise— (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of— (a) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Minister of Power which, by virtue of subsection (3) of section three of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, are defrayed out of such moneys. I wonder whether the Minister or somebody else could tell us what is the anticipated increase in the expenses of the Minister of Power attributable to the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading. The Minister may have expected us closely to scrutinise Section 3 (3) of the Act of 1945, but even though we had it is not quite certain we should have fully comprehended its meaning. However, I would be grateful to him if he would tell us what is the increase, attributable to the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading, of the expenses to be incurred by the Minister.

Paragraph (1, b) also provides for moneys to be provided by Parliament for any increase attributable to the said Act"— that is, the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading— of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-Deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local Government in England and Wales or in Scotland. This is very puzzling indeed. I would have thought that the only effect upon the income of local authorities arising from the provisions of the Bill would be from that Clause which provides that pipelines in England and Wales will have to pay their whack of local rates. They have henceforth to be rated.

The Minister explained that quite recently there was a court decision which judged that pipelines and plants attached to them were not rateable subjects. Now that they are to be made rateable subjects one would have thought that the income of local authorities would have increased as a result of the Bill. If that were so, I should not have thought that thereby there would have been any increase arising in the rate deficiency grant or the Exchequer equalisation grant. I should have thought that it might have had the opposite effect. [Interruption.] However, the Money Resolution seems to anticipate—

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

On a point of order. This is a terribly important Bill and we are anxious to hear all about the Money Resolution. There seem to be so many private conversations going on that I wonder whether we could not have some order.

The Chairman

It is a fact that there is so much noise going on that it is difficult to hear what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is saying.

Mr. Ross

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) should start again.

Mr. Fraser

I am being encouraged to start again. I do not propose to accept that advice, though I ask whether the Minister takes the last point I have been making. I was saying that I should have thought that the provision in the Bill to ensure that pipelines are rateable subjects in England and Wales would have allowed an increase in the income of local authorities which might conceivably have had the effect of reducing the rate deficiency grant or the Exchequer equalisation grant, but the provisions of the Money Resolution suggest that it would have the opposite effect. Can the Minister explain how on earth it can have the opposite effect in England and Wales? Since pipelines are rateable subjects in Scotland at present, there is no provision in the Bill to make pipelines in Scotland—[Interruption.]—rateable subjects. I cannot see how there can be—

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)

On a point of order. I am sure that hon. Members will want to be assured that hon. Gentleman are not being accused of making all this noise when it is the hon. Ladies beyond the Bar who are making the noise.

Mr. Fraser

I think that I had better bring my remarks to a conclusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is difficult to understand how some deficiency would have to be made good by means of the rate deficiency grant or the Exchequer equalisation grant in England and Wales because of the operations of the Bill. It is even more difficult to see how an increase in the grants would arise in Scotland under its provisions since, as far as I know, the Bill does not affect the income of local authorities in Scotland. However, the Minister no doubt has a perfectly reasonable and valid explanation of the Money Resolution and I should be glad if we could have it before the Committee is invited to pass the Resolution.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Steele

After listening to the debate on Second Reading and hearing the Minister of Power and the Attorney-General, I want to ask the Minister why we are having this Money Resolution at all. After all, we were informed that these pipelines were to be provided by private enterprise and that that enterprise would be very profitable. If that is so, why are certain sums of public money necessary? Why it is necessary to have this Money Resolution, placing a burden on the public purse? This Committee has a right to know.

Hon. Members opposite argue that they believe in private enterprise, and in private enterprise that makes a profit. If that is their philosophy, then those who are building the pipelines should bear the cost, and none of it should be borne by the public. The Money Resolution reads: … for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate and facilitate the construction … If that means that a burden is to be put on the public purse, then we should know how much it is to be. The Minister should make it clear that the burden will be put where it belongs—not on the taxpayer but on the private enterprise companies who will build these pipelines. The Money Resolution goes on to say that it will involve money to … secure the safe operation of pipelines … Why should this burden be on the public purse? Why should we be asked to give the Minister power to make all this provision and to ensure that any cost arising out of this project is borne by Parliament? The Minister should ensure that the burden of this provision is also placed where it belongs.

The Money Resolution also says: … and make provision for matters arising thereout … What other matters are these? Are we giving a blank cheque to the Minister? My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who is a suspicious man in these matters, indicated that the petroleum companies have already made some contribution. I am not saying that they made it direct to the Government, for that would be wrong, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, too, would not say that. But he thinks that some money has been passed.

Surely we shall not be asked to give a blank cheque to the Minister to spend public money for pipelines to be built by private enterprise for its own profit? We should have more explanation of what all this means. I hope we will get it from the Minister. If his reply is on the same lines as that of the Attorney-General on Second Reading, clearly we shall have to vote against this Money Resolution as well.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) read out an interesting word from the Money Resolution—"thereout". This is the first time I have seen that word in a Money Resolution. It should be "therefrom". The right hon. Gentleman might consider the possibility of withdrawing this Money Resolution in order to have it put into good English. It is a very serious matter that we have to put up with this kind of slipshod verbiage because the Government are so slipshod themselves. That is not treating this Committee as it should be treated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) raised a very interesting point. My hon. Friend pointed out that as a result of what is dealt with in the Bill and the Money Resolution, namely, the Exchequer equalisation grant and the rate deficiency grant, England might find that it had an increased rateable value, which would lower the Exchequer equalisation grant. If that is so, that would lower the Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland. Scotland is therefore likely to be worse off as a result of the Bill. Having listened to the speech of the Attorney-General, we know that we are not to have any pipelines in Scotland because they will not be profitable, and he does not believe that we should try to- attract industry to Scotland. Scotland will not be able to gain any benefit from the Bill, cannot look forward to enjoying the fruits of this potentially great form of transport, and will be worse off financially. That is a disastrous prospect for Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), with his usual acumen, saw that the Bill suggested that we were to have to help private enterprise to make its profits, something which is not unusual for Tories. Apparently it is Tory philosophy that we cannot do things which are in the public interest, but we can always find time to help private enterprise to make profits.

When I examined this Money Resolution, with my usual thoroughness, I examined the Explanatory Memorandum and that part of it which deals with the Bill's financial effects. We are given a detailed list of the things which are covered by the Money Resolution. Paragraph 18 (1, a) of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum gives an interesting list. It says that the expenses of the Minister of Power are to cover: under clause 4 (2) in removing works executed without a pipe-line construction authorisation under clause 1 (1) or without notice under clause 2 (1); under clause 20 (2) in removing works executed contrary to the Minister's directions under clause 19 (1) or in altering them; under clause 23 (2) in rendering a length of pipe-line safe on abandonment or disuse; under clause 25 (2) in demolishing a building encroaching on the route of an underground pipe-line, or alternatively under clause 26 (1) in executing remedial works to the building or pipe-line; under clause 28 (1) in removing deposits of spoil or refuse encroaching on the route of an underground pipe-line. In other words, we are being asked to sanction payments in order that we can chase after private enterprise to undo the things which ought not to have been done. We will have to put things right for private enterprise. We have to remove the soil and the dirt. We have to make abandoned and disused pipelines safe. It is true that the Minister is to be given power to obtain repayment from private enterprise and hopes that it will pay him for the work he does. However, at the foot of that page we read: Expenditure under sub-paragraph (1) (a) to (e) and (i), which might be substantial, may be recoverable, in part at least, from other parties as stated above. What does this mean? This seems to cover the most substantial expenditure which we are being asked to vote under this Money Resolution. We are being asked to do this because the Government are wedded to private industry, and because the robber barons have exerted pressure on the Government to forbid public industry and to enable private industry to forge ahead and take its toll of the public. We will have to clear up the mess afterwards. Or, if they try to do something which they are unable to do, we shall have to correct their mistakes. The Minister has not even got a guarantee that he will get the money back from private enterprise. That is what this means.

The Minister ought to explain this before trying to slip it through on the quiet. I can understand why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here. He would wish this to be slipped through on the quiet, but we have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and I hesitate to accuse him of wishing to slip it through. This is a serious matter. We are being asked to vote money for these purposes, and I hope that if we do not get a satisfactory explanation of this—and I have my doubts about whether we shall—my hon. Friends will vote against this Money Resolution.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood)

It is perhaps appropriate that a number of hon. Members from Scotland should, with their usual concern for our financial affairs, be investigating the details of this Money Resolution, even at this rather late hour.

In answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I have been looking forward to trying to explain these details which seem to be exercising him and his hon. Friends. I hope that I can explain them satisfactorily, although perhaps not with the exactitude that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) would like.

The Financial Resolution is necessary for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East told us in con- siderable detail—and I recognise some of his speech from the Bill in front of me—to cover any increase in the expenses incurred by the Minister as a result of various functions, of which the hon. Gentleman gave details; secondly, to meet any increase in the sums which may be payable by way of rate deficiency grant and Exchequer equalisation grant.

There are one or two things which it is very difficult to estimate, but which it is pretty certain will not be very expensive. One is the increase in the Minister of Power's administrative expenses under Clause 16. The other is the expense of inquiries under the Sixth Schedule. Neither of these is likely to be very much, but they are extremely difficult to estimate.

The item for which I can give an exact estimate is remuneration, allowances and other payments made to or in respect of inspectors … I understand that this is likely to be about £10,000 to £12,000. But the earlier items, the cost of removing works executed without a pipeline construction authorisation and the other matters for which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East gave details, may or may not be substantial expenses.

These are controls which I think the House has agreed should be exercised in the public interest. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wanted to go further this afternoon, but these are controls which are exercised in the public interest and it is right therefore that the public should bear the cost of them.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement.

Mr. Wood

I have not finished. May I finish, and then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not think that it is as important as he thinks it is now. These are matters for which the public should bear certain costs. These expenses of the Ministry of Power will largely be recoverable and, therefore, presumably, these first five items will not fall to any extent on the public purse.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Price

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has made an important statement. The effect of it is that if anyone erects a pipeline or carries out works without authorisation from the Ministry of Power then the public purse may be charged with the cost of putting the matter right. My point is that if someone erects a house or other building on land illegally and without authority under the town planning powers he is charged with the cost of putting the job right and pulling down the building. It seems to me that we are here departing from public policy.

Mr. Wood

That is exactly the position under the Bill. These expenses which will be incurred by the Ministry of Power in exercising the powers which the House has approved will be recoverable. If hon. Gentlemen read the Bill they will see that they can be recovered. Therefore, that group of expenses will not, in fact, turn out eventually to be considerable although at any one time the Minister may be saddled with certain expenses in removing the kind of obstruction to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.

The other main purpose of the Money Resolution, as I pointed out, was the payment of any increase in the sums by way of rate deficiency grant Or Exchequer equalisation grant, and here, of course, the provisions of the Bill may affect the grant in two ways. One way is by increasing the expenditure on which the grant is payable and the other is by changing the percentages of the grant. The hon. Gentleman was very anxious to know how this could possibly increase the grant, and it is certainly true that the rating provision in Clause 38 will in every case in which the pipeline goes through the local authority's territory increase the 1d. rate product of those areas.

It is impossible to say at the moment, because we do not know how they will work, what is going to be the precise expenditure on inquiries in connection with pipelines, or what cost of inquiries will fall on the local authorities. It is impossible to say at the moment with any exactitude, as I think the hon. Gentleman would like me to say, what the total effect of these two provisions is going to be and, therefore, impossible for me to give him a more exact answer as to whether the effect on the rate deficiency grant is going to be good or bad from the point of view of the local authority.

I hope, therefore, having given this explanation of the charges that are likely to fall, which I think are already reasonably clearly explained in the Financial Memorandum, that the Committee will agree to approve the Money Resolution.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he be good enough to clear up this point which has already been raised and to which he has just made reference? Paragraph 19 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states: Expenditure under sub-paragraph (1) (a) to (e) and (i), which might be substantial, may be recoverable, in part at least … The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill enables the Minister to recover that expenditure wholly. If that is so, why does the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum say that it is only recoverable in part at least"?

Mr. Wood

The answer is that the Minister has power to recover these moneys. It is true that it may be only part of the cost. The money may not be forthcoming which the Minister wants to recover, but he has power to recover.

Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)

This has been a very unsatisfactory statement from the Minister. It seems clear that what he calls expenditure controls in the public interest—and which, therefore, the public should pay—are really acts which the Government must take to tidy up the things which private enterprise should have done itself. It is left to public activities, far which, as he says, the public has to pay. The debate has been extremely interesting, in that it has disclosed that the Money Resolution covers in large part the costs which the public will be paying for things which private enterprise should pay for, Which may or may not be recovered, and which it is expected will be recovered only in part.

The other thing that surprised me was that local authorities will have to pay the cost of inquiries. This fact was not disclosed during the Second Reading debate, as I recall—although it is a long and complicated Measure. The Minister said that it would be paid for out of the increased penny rate, but an inquiry might result in turning down permission to build a pipeline, in which case the cost would fall on the local authority without any countervailing benefit on the other side. This is something wholly new, and it is extremely unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us what will happen if the cost falls on a local authority which is not recouped by an increase in the penny rate.

The Minister assumed that it would be; he assumed that all inquiries would go one way. But the penny rate would only come in if the inquiry went the right way. If it went the other way the local authority would be left with an extra charge, which we did not understand was going to fall upon it when the Bill was explained to us. Even if the Minister has a satisfactory explanation of that matter, however, the other part of his speech leads me to think that we should divide against the Money Resolution. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain the point about local authorities which will not be recouped.

Mr. Ross

It is extremely unsatisfactory that on a matter as important as this we should be given so little information. We have so many lectures from hon. Members opposite, and from the Chancellor, about Government expenditure, telling us that it is no good asking him to reduce taxation, but we are expected blindly to vote for a Money Resolution which will mean an increase in taxation. Hon. Members opposite, who usually have so much to say on this matter, are not prepared to ask how much this will cost.

Mr. Willis

My hon. Friend should not speak so loudly; they are asleep.

Mr. Ross

That is a good reason for my talking loudly. I may wake some of them up.

We got only one figure from the Minister, and he tried to obscure even that. He gave us a figure of £12,000 as the administrative cost to his Department in respect of the inspectors. That figure arises from the safety precautions which will have to be taken, arising out of an exercise that is to be undertaken—we have been told this all day, eventually by no less a person than the Attorney-General himself—only if it is profitable. The profit goes to the private oil company, but the cost of making the system safe has to be borne by the taxpayers.

On every other point we could get no information. The Government do not know. Hon. Members opposite, despite all their speeches against Government expenditure, are prepared to accept this without a murmur. The Minister says, "Fancy raising this at this late hour". When can we raise it otherwise? By the laws of the House we are allowed only three-quarters of an hour to discuss it. There was a day, when the Labour Party was in power, when we went on all night on this kind of thing. I should like a further estimate from the Minister about the real cost under the headings referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). We have had experience of some of the things which have been left, in the shape of disused houses, disused pieces of land, disused collieries and so on. The financial obligation falls on the local authority. The House has not accepted this or examined the enigma of the rate deficiency grant.

The Minister will be conversant with the intricacies of the rate deficiency payment, not only in England and Wales, but how it affects Scotland. There is a double formula which I am sure the Leader of the House knows well. The rate deficiency in aggregate comes down in England automatically in connection with the eleven-eightieths which underlies the whole thing. No one can persuade me that the cost of an inquiry against the increased assessment arising out of the provision of a pipeline will lead to an increase of the rate deficiency grant. It will lead to a reduction. Scotland will get no benefit at all. Automatically it will lead to a reduction, and I want to know by how much.

I regret the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary and the reason for it. But he would appreciate the reason why we are concerned about these matters. I hope that the Minister will have another go, out of fairness to the House and his own party and out of fairness and in justice to Scotland.

Mr. Wood

If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is right, the financial position of the local authorities in England and Wales will not worsen. He is concerned about the position in Scotland. Perhaps first I might answer the question of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who was concerned about the expenditure which might fall on a local authority. He said he was not aware that this was in the Bill, but it is contained in Clause 44. I can sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman for not understanding the Bill, but in fact it means what I say that it means. The cost falls on the local authority, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be unduly concerned about this cost because the Ministry of Power will provide the inspector—and all that the local authority will be asked to provide is the hall where the inquiry will be held and perhaps some heating if the inquiry is held in the winter. At the same time the local authority will have a good chance of getting a pipeline with an increase in the product of a penny rate.

I appreciate that the pipeline may not run through the area of a local authority and that it will not then get the penny rate. In such a case the authority will bear a small charge. But it is, in fact, included in the Bill, and I should not like to mislead the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gordon Walker

In his first intervention the Minister said that these two things were likely to balance. He did not know what the effect of the rate deficiency grant would be because these two factors might balance either way. Now he is saying that there will be no real cost to the local authority and the rate grant will drop, and the point made by my hon. Friend is true in relation to Scotland.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Wood

In relation to Scotland, where the Exchequer equalisation grant is payable, the amount is designed—I need hardly mention these facts to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who knows them so well—to

bring the resources of those local authorities up to a level determined by comparison with local authority expenditure and rate burden. I can assure the hon. Member that this Bill is unlikely to have any substantial effect on that grant.

Mr. T. Fraser

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman how ridiculous is the position? He is making clear that the local authorities will bear the cost of these inquiries. If he will look at his own Bill, he will see in the First Schedule that the Minister may order a public inquiry to be held notwithstanding the fact that the local planning authority has not offered any objection. If for reasons which are outwith the knowledge of the local authority the Minister himself has seem fit to order a public inquiry—which is understandable—why should the authority have to pay for the inquiry?

Despite what the Minister said about Clause 44, it is quite unintelligible. It is rather late in the evening to read it now. I suggest that the replies which the Minister has given us are so unsatisfactory that the Leader of the House, who has sat there during this debate, should recognise that the Committee has had no satisfactory explanation of the Money Resolution and that the only reasonable thing to do is to adjourn the discussion now and continue it at a more reasonable hour of the day. The Minister said that he wondered why we should have this discussion at this late hour. I think he was right in making that complaint. It is unreasonable to have this discussion on this complicated matter at this time. I ask the Leader of the House if he will move to adjourn the discussion to a more reasonable time.

Mr. Wood

I must clear this up. I never wondered why we should have this discussion, but I congratulated hon. Members opposite on their concern for our financial affairs.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 241, Noes 174.

Division No. 181.] AYES [11.3 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Barber, Anthony Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)
Allason, James Barlow, Sir John Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Arbuthnot, John Barter, John Bidgood, John C.
Ashton, Sir Hubert Batsford, Brian Biffen, John
Atkins, Humphrey Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Bingham, R. M.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hay, John Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bishop, F. P. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pilkington, Sir Richard
Black, Sir Cyril Henderson, John (Cathcart) Pitt, Miss Edith
Bossom, Clive Hendry, Forbes Pott, Percivall
Bourne-Arton, A. Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Box, Donald Hiley, Joseph Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Prior, J. M. L.
Braine, Bernard Hirst, Geoffrey Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hobson, Sir John Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Buck, Antony Hocking, Philip N. Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bullard, Denys Holland, Philip Pym, Francis
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hollingworth, John Quennell, Miss J. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hopkins, Alan Rawlinson, Peter
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Hornby, R. P. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Ridsdale, Julian
Channon, H. P. G. Hughes-Young, Michael Rippon, Geoffrey
Chataway, Christopher Hulbert, Sir Norman Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Chichester-Clark, R. Hurd, Sir Anthony Robson Brown, Sir William
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Iremonger, T. L. Roots, William
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cleaver, Leonard James, David Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Collard, Richard Jennings, J. C. Russell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Scott-Hopkins, James
Cooper, A. E. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Seymour, Leslie
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Sharples, Richard
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Shaw, M.
Corfield, F. V. Kershaw, Anthony Skeet, T. H. H.
Costain, A. P. Kimball, Marcus Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Coulson, Michael Kirk, Peter Smithers, Peter
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Kitson, Timothy Spearman, Sir Alexander
Craddock, Sir Beresford Leather, E. H. C. Stanley, Hon. Richard
Critchley, Julian Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stodart, J. A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Storey, Sir Samuel
Curran, Charles Lilley, F. J. P. Studholme, Sir Henry
Currie, G. B. H. Litchfield, Capt. John Summers, Sir Spencer
Dalkeith, Earl of Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Talbot, John E.
Dance, James Longden, Gilbert Tapsell, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Loveys, Walter H. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Deedes, W. F. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Doughty, Charles McAdden, Stephen Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Drayson, G. B. MacArthur, Ian Teeling, Sir William
Duncan, Sir James McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Temple, John M.
Eden, John Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Emery, Peter Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Errington, Sir Eric McMaster, Stanley R. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Farey-Jones, F. W. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Farr, John Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Turner, Colin
Fisher, Nigel Maddan, Martin Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Foster, John Marten, Neil Vane, W. M. F.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Vickers, Miss Joan
Gammans, Lady Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Gardner, Edward Mawby, Ray Walder, David
Gibson-Watt, David Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Glover, Sir Douglas Mills, Stratton Ward, Dame Irene
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Miscampbell, Norman Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Goodhart, Philip More, Jasper (Ludlow) Webster, David
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Morgan, William Wells, John (Maidstone)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Nabarro, Gerald Whitelaw, William
Green, Alan Neave, Airey Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Gresham Cooke, R. Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Osborn, John (Hallam) Wise, A. R.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Page, Graham (Crosby) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Page, John (Harrow, West) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Woollam, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Worsley, Marcus
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Peel, John Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Percival, Ian
Hastings, Stephen Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.
Abse, Leo Beaney, Alan Boardman, H.
Ainsley, William Bence, Cyril Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Albu, Austen Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Benson, Sir George Bowles, Frank
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Blackburn, F. Brockway, A. Fenner
Awbery, Stan Blyton, William Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Proctor, W. T.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hunter, A. E. Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Randall, Harry
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Janner, Sir Barnett Rankin, John
Cliffe, Michael Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Redhead, E. C.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Reid, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Reynolds, G. W.
Cronin, John Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Rhodes, H.
Crosland, Anthony Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kelley, Richard Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kenyon, Clifford Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) King, Dr. Horace Ross, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lawson, George Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Ledger, Ron Skeffington, Arthur
Deer, George Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Delargy, Hugh Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Dempsey, James Lipton, Marcus Small, William
Diamond, John Loughlin, Charles Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Dodds, Norman Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sorensen, R. W.
Donnelly, Desmond McCann, John Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Driberg, Tom MacColl, James Spriggs, Leslie
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. MacDermot, Niall Steele, Thomas
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) McInnes, James Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Evans, Albert McKay, John (Wallsend) Stonehouse, John
Fernyhough, E. Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Stones, William
Finch, Harold MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Fitch, Alan MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Fletcher, Eric Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Swain, Thomas
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Marsh, Richard Taverne, D.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mason, Roy Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Forman, J. C. Mayhew, Christopher, Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mellish, R. J. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mendelson, J. J. Thornton, Ernest
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Millan, Bruce Timmons, John
Ginsburg, David Milne, Edward Wainwright, Edwin
Gooch, E. G. Mitchison, G. R. Warbey, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Monslow, Walter Weitzman, David
Gourlay, Harry Moody, A. S. White, Mrs. Eirene
Greenwood, Anthony Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Whitlock, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oram, A. E. Wigg, George
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Oswald, Thomas Wilkins, W. A.
Gunter, Ray Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Willey, Frederick
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pargiter, G. A. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Parker, John Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Harper, Joseph Pavitt, Laurence Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hayman, F. H. Peart, Frederick Winterbottom, R. E.
Herbison, Miss Margaret Pentland, Norman Woof, Robert
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Plummer, Sir Leslie Wyatt, Woodrow
Hilton, A. V. Popplewell, Ernest Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Holman, Percy Prentice, R. E.
Houghton, Douglas Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hoy, James H. Probert, Arthur Mr. Grey and
Mr. Charles A. Howell.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.