HC Deb 13 April 1964 vol 693 cc146-61

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan

I beg to move Amendment No. 168, in page 95, line 38, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker( Sir W. Anstruther-Gray)

In calling this Amendment it will be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 169, in page 95, line 38, leave out "as soon as is practicable".

Amendment No. 170, in line 41, after made)", insert: and before notice of its making is first published in accordance with Schedule 1 to that Act". and Amendment No. 171, in page 96, line 9, at end insert: A copy of the terms of the resolution passed by a local authority under this subsection shall be sent within twenty-one days thereafter to the Minister and shall be taken into account by him in determining whether or not the order should be confirmed. with Divisions on all the Amendments if so desired.

Mr. Millan

Clause 91 as it stands makes quite substantial changes in the Clean Air Act, 1956. In fact, I think it would be true to say that it makes fundamental changes in that Act. The original intention of the 1956 Act, so far as domestic households are concerned, was to apply compulsion towards getting smokeless areas but to do that at the same time by paying grant to occupiers to enable them to meet the bulk of the cost to which they would be put in meeting the requirements of a clean air order.

That was the first principle, that there should be compulsion, but, on the other hand, that there should be some financial compensation to the occupier. The second principle, as I understood it and as I think it has been operated under the Act, was that there should be a reasonable freedom of choice to the domestic occupier to choose the kind of conversion to clean air that he found most satisfactory or that most met his particular tastes in the matter.

Under this Clause the whole basis of the Act is being changed. These two principles really go together. It is not much use saying that we are going to pay grant to occupiers for making conversions to meet the requirements of a clean air order unless, at the same time, we give a certain freedom of choice to the occupiers. If we give them a restricted freedom of choice or say that we will only pay grant for kinds of conversions which occupiers do not choose, the whole principle of paying grant goes by the board. This is what seems to me is being done by this Clause.

What will happen under subsections (2) and (3) is that both the local authority by means of a resolution and the Government by means of a designation will be able to say that certain kinds of appliances will not be eligible for grant because these appliances burn fuel in a way which is unsuitable for the area of the particular authority, or generally, considering the general fuel situation. As I say, this is really a fundamental change in the law, because if this Bill is passed as it stands it will be possible for the local authority and the Government acting independently or in concert so to circumscribe the freedom of choice of the consumers that very large numbers of them will be compelled to meet the requirements of smoke control orders at their own expense. This, as has been brought home to me in personal constituency experience, could be quite considerable expense. I have at present a good many constituents who are faced with smoke control conversions which will cost about £100. If they had to pay anything like that sum personally, without any grant, the burden upon them would, obviously, be very great.

The Government's intention under the Clause, as we managed to draw it out from Ministers in Committee, is, in the first place at least—they may intend to go further later—to disqualify direct electric fires for grant purposes under the 1956 Act. I hope that hon. Members who were not on the Committee and who may not be aware of this will take due note of it. Many of them will find, when this happens, that they have complaints from constituents when smoke control orders are put into effect.

This is a considerable change in the law. Direct electric fires are only the start. Under the Clause as at present drafted, the Government can disqualify virtually every kind of appliance for the purpose of grant. The provision is expressed in very wide terms. The Government intend to disqualify direct electric fires simply because of their policy towards the Central Electricity Generating Board. Their policy regarding block storage heaters has been such that there is now a tremendous demand for electricity which, at peak hours during the winter, cannot be met. But this is a failure of Government policy, and there is no reason why Government failure in this respect should be visited upon the unfortunate occupiers of domestic premises in smoke control areas.

For all these reasons, I do not like the Clause at all and I should be quite happy if it were dropped from the Bill. However, the purpose of the Amendments which we are now discussing is rather more limited. In Committee we mounted a broad attack on the Government's proposals, but we are now dealing with comparatively limited matters. I take, first, Amendment Nos. 169, 170 and 171. These deal with the procedure by which the local authority passes its resolution saying that certain types of appliance are not to be eligible for grant.

I am concerned to ensure that a resolution of this sort, once passed, will be taken into account by the Government, by the Minister of Housing in England or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, before an order is confirmed. I want to make absolutely sure that, in confirming an order, the Minister appreciates that the local authority has taken steps to disqualify certain appliances for grant. This is not done, so far as I can see, by subsection (2) as it now stands. It will be more nearly done if Government Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 are accepted because these Amendments place a certain time obligation on the local authority to make up its mind about disqualifying appliances before an order is actually published in accordance with the Act.

Amendment No. 171 which we have put down provides simply that a copy of the terms of the resolution shall be sent to the Minister within 21 days. This makes sure that the Minister knows about it. It may be that, if Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 are accepted, Amendment No. 171 will not be as important as it would have been in dealing with subsection (2) as at present drafted.

My Amendment in page 95, line 38, goes a good deal further than this and proposes to eliminate subsection (2). I had an Amendment down to eliminate subsection (3) as well, but that is not to be called. I should like to table Amendments to eliminate the whole Clause bit by bit.

Even accepting the principle behind the Clause, there seems to me good reason why we should not accept subsection (2). It is rather odd. It gives certain powers to the local authority. But it is difficult to see in what circumstances these powers will be required by the local authority, because precisely the same powers are given to the Minister under subsection (3). The Minister is not only capable of designating the class of appliances as generally suitable for installation but tie is also given power to designate certain classes of appliances as being unsuitable for installation in particular areas. All the powers which the local authority will want to discharge under subsection (2) are already available to the Minister under subsection (3). It therefore seems to me that subsection (2) is not required.

If the local authority wants to disqualify certain appliances it should have to apply to the Minister and get the Minister to make the designating order. It seems to me undesirable to give two classes of power. They are both powers which are detrimental to the interests of the occupiers concerned in the sense that they restrict their freedom of choice. I am not happy about the whole Clause, but having given the power to the Minister under subsection (3)—that is a power about which he could be questioned in this House—it seems to me unnecessary also to give the power to the local authority under subsection (2).

Even if one accepted the principle of the Clause and was happy with the idea behind it in the circumstances which have led up to it, with all of which I am not satisfied, it does not seem to me necessary to have subsection (2).

I hope that the Minister will not take my Amendment in page 95, line 38 as being a wrecking Amendment. If it were possible to get a wrecking Amendment in order, I should be only too happy to do so, but it is not possible. There is a genuine argument for this Amendment as distinct from an argument which is merely a cover for a wrecking operation. I hope that the Minister will accept the argument on my Amendment on the merits of the case; that I have been making.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Corfield

Perhaps I can conveniently refer first to the two Government Amendments and then try to answer tie comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cragton (Mr. Millan) on his Amendments.

With the Amendments proposed by the Government in page 95, line 38 and line 41, it will be obligatory on the local authority to pass the resolution in time for it to be included with the advertisement of the proposal to make the clean air order or the making of the order the local authority. This means that when the clean air order comes before the Minister, part of his function is to ensure that the procedure has been properly complied with. For instance, we always ensure that the necessary advertisements have been made. If these Amendments are passed, there will automatically be a check that not only have the advertisements been made but that, if there is a resolution, it too is made before the time that the advertisements have to be put in the Press, either the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette.

I think and hope that that will meet the question I put by the hon. Member. I hope that he will still agree, as I thought he did, that this makes his second Amendment largely unnecessary, even though he still dislikes the general approach of the Clause.

I cross swords with the hon. Member from the outset on his Amendment and the principles that he enunciated. The basic principle here is that in the interests of the community it is desirable to prohibit the use of certain smoke-producing appliances and fuels. The other side of the coin is not merely that compensation is given, but that a grant is given towards the use of an appliance which is positively in the public interest. Clearly, it would be nonsense to make a grant towards the installation of an appliance which in some other way would be as damaging, perhaps, to the public interest as the original production of smoke.

The hon. Member says rather glibly that it is all the fault of the Government because certain peak electricity demands are not readily met. He knows well enough that one of the problems still awaiting the technical age is to store alternating current electricity. One is bound, therefore, to have a degree of waste if ever the peak is met. Appliances which are dependent upon electricity and which take electricity at the off-peak hours are clearly in the public interest and a matter of importance to the national economy.

Mr. Millan

It is surprising that the Government waited more than 10 years before meeting the demands to remove Purchase Tax from bulk storage heaters, which meet the requirements that the hon. Gentleman has just laid down.

Mr. Corfield

I can think of several other things on which there is Purchase Tax, but which it is desirable to buy, although not related, perhaps, to the Amendment.

The House will, I am sure, agree that it would not be sense to give a grant as positive encouragement to use a fuel which creates an embarrassment to some other part of the national economy. This is not to say that we have deprived these people of choice, as the hon. Member suggested. It is still open to them to install the ordinary bar heaters and the other types of direct electric heating if they feel inclined to do so. The difference is that they do not get the positive encouragement of a grant, because in certain areas this will not be desirable for other reasons.

It is almost self-evident that as we are making this change, which is brought about not by any failure, but by great and sudden advance in the gas industry, making it necessary to look again at the supplies of the commoner and cheaper smokeless fuels, namely, coke, to sanction a somewhat higher grant, to show a more generous attitude and to risk creating the same sort of use by encouraging people to use a fuel which, if used at peak times, might well produce difficulties, load-shedding, and so on, would be nonsense in terms.

I do not suppose that I shall carry the hon. Member with me, because he has, I know, a strong constituency interest, but although he has through-out made constructive suggestions on the Bill his present one falls rather short of the standard which he has set. I cannot believe that he really thinks that it is right to spend public money on encouraging people to do something which, quite clearly, will be embarrassing, to say the least, to some other part of the economy. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his Amendment, though I do not say so with any great confidence.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

The Minister seemed a little self-righteous, if I may say so, in addressing his remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in the way he did, though he did pay him the tribute of saying that his contributions made in Committee were of a constructive character.

The theme of the Minister's speech had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act. The purpose of the Clean Air Act was to clean the atmosphere. It is so obvious that it is trite to say so. The theme of the Minister's contribution was that it would be wrong to encourage people to spend public money on replacing inefficient appliances with some other appliances which would create embarrassment to the national economy. That is the Minister's contention, but that surely was not the main purpose of the Clean Air Act.

The Minister went on to say we should not encourage the use of a fuel which would lead to load shedding. Those were his words. As I understand it, this is precisely my hon. Friend's objection to subsection (2) of the Clause. What is to determine this is the undue strain on the fuel resources, whatever those fuel resources may be. At one time it may be coal, at another time electricity.

The main purpose of the Clean Air Act was to save the nation other great costs. For example, there are many people in the North of England and in Scotland who are at this moment studying holiday brochures to see whether they can get a greater supply of sun, to make up for the sun starvation which results from smoke and the smokeladen atmosphere.

The cost to the nation in maintaining inefficient appliances is far more than the Government have yet recognised. For example, I understand that it costs £4,000 a year more to keep Leeds Infirmary clean than it does to pay for the drugs bill. It costs £84,000 a year to keep the infirmary clean and its drugs bill is £80,000 a year.

The House may think this is a farfetched argument on this Amendment, but these were the arguments which were employed in favour of the passing of the Clean Air Bill. It is costing the nation £50 million a year in damage to textiles from the smokeladen atmosphere. Surely, therefore, the point which my hon. Friend has in seeking to assist local authorities to pay this grant to keep the atmosphere clean is of the utmost importance. It costs the nation £30 million a year to repair the damage to the painting and decorating of buildings. It costs £25 million a year in metal corrosion.

In this country pain and suffering from bronchitis is the greatest in the world. More deaths take place through bronchitis through the smoke-laden atmosphere in Britain than in any other country in the world. It is known as the English disease.

I think that my hon. Friend has raised a very important point in asking for assurances that subsection (2) of the Clause will not impair the work of the local authorities in helping their ratepayers, and those covered by the smokeless zone orders, to have some access to the instruments which would help the nation's health.

Mr. Willis

The first interesting thing about the Clause is that it is in the Bill at all. What clean air has to do with the Housing Bill, I do not know. I think that this was a very smart operation by the Minister of Power to cloak the failure of the Government to plan supplies of smokeless fuels to meet the demands arising from the Clean Air Act. From the Government point of view, this was a very desirable thing to do, their view being "We must not confess our failures. We will hide them in the Housing Bill." Goodness knows what else the Government have hidden in the Bill. No wonder the Scottish Law Report said that this was a hotch-potch of a Bill.

The second thing about the Bill and the Amendments we are discussing, particularly the subsection that we want to delete, is that the Government have never really been very honest about all this.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Or anything else.

Mr. Willis

We hear a very great deal from the Government about the growing shortage of gas coke and the need to do something about it, but we were never told until the Committee stage of the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is to be thanked for this—that the Government intended to put an embargo on direct electrical heating appliances. If most people had known this, they would not have been buying direct the electrical heating appliances. This has been in mind, but we did not discover it until the Committee stage.

So, first, it is amazing that the Clause is here at all and, secondly, the Government have not been very honest about all this. Thirdly, subsection (2) places very great powers in the hands of local authorities, and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the same powers are given to the Minister. The Government talk about freedom of choice, but this will be freedom of choice only if one is a millionaire and can afford everything. If one can pay for it, one can have what one likes, but if one happens to be a working class man, one can have only what the Government lets one have.

Mr. Corfield

indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis

The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but that is the meaning of the Clause. If I am prepared to pay £100 for a heater, I can have any heater I like. Notwithstanding the shortage of gas, coke or electricity, I can instal one. But if I am a working man, with £12 or £13 per week, and unable to afford £100 for a heater, the Government say I must not have it. If I look for a Government grant to help me, the Government say that I must not do this, that or the other and can have only what the Government say I can have.

This is the Government who make speeches on television and wireless about freedom of choice and freedom from control. The Government's propaganda is, "Do not let the Socialists in: they will control everything." But the Conservative Government are controlling ordinary folk. Yet, if one has money, one can do what one likes.

For these reasons, we ought to look at the Government's proposals very carefully before we accept them. I would rather accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and oppose the retention of subsection (2). I have no constituency interest in this matter, but it seems that many people are involved.

9.45 p.m.

I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for long at this time of night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—although, given a little encouragement, I could go on for an hour. However, I am kindly disposed towards the Government, and I like to see them get their business occasionally. We are not opposing the Bill. As a matter of fact, hon. Members opposite have filibustered on most of the Bill. All the property owners on the other side of the House have meticulously examined every part of every Clause dealing with compensation for the landowner. Incidentally, I do not see them in their places now that we are talking about heating for ordinary folk. However, I have said sufficient to show why I will support the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart

I rise to support the Amendment because it is important that the Parliamentary Secretary should not run away with the idea that this is a local problem of my Scottish hon. Friends. There is more to it than that. I will comment, first, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, on the general principle underlying this clean air business and the Clause and the Amendment. We start from the proposition that there are certain ways of heating a home, or factory, or whatever it is, which are undesirable because they foul the air and are no longer necessary. We lay down the proposition that those appliances should be prohibited. So far, so good, so long as there are alternative methods available.

We next consider that if we lay down that prohibition and apply it locally by the creation of smokeless zones, we impose expense, which is sometimes considerable, on a number of people who have to install different methods of heating. We say that we will give them assistance in doing so. Again, so far so good.

We now take it a step further. The Government now say that people will not get this assistance if the particular method of heating they want to install, although it does not foul the air, is one which it is thought to be socially undesirable for some other reason. Is not this pressing planning and direction rather far? I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary of being a secret planner. I regret the absence from the debate of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I can imagine the bitter scorn which he would pour on a Government who first said that one must not have a coal fire and that that would be absolutely prohibited and then that if one wanted to substitute for it an electric fire, the Government would make that difficult financially.

Apart from these philsophic objections, there are practical difficulties. What is an undesirable appliance in the Government's view is liable to change, as the Government have themselves admitted, with progress and invention. If this power to say to people, "We will discourage you from bringing into your house this particular appliance because we consider it undesirable" is given to local authorities and the Minister, is there not a danger that that will be regarded by the Government in effect as an easy way out rather than the pursuit of research and development in industry which would remove from that particular method of heating its undesirability?

There is a danger that we may freeze invention and development into different methods of heating. At the very least I think that it will be agreed that it is a rather tricky business for the State, in effect, to say, "You are not only not to have a coal fire, but we will make it specially difficult for you if you choose some other method of heating which you may prefer". It is difficult when one is told to install an appliance without a grant. Even with the grant it is not for many people entirely easy to comply with smokeless zone orders. If the public authority wish to have this power there is a very great deal to be said for the power being wielded in a manner which is directly responsible to this House.

That is the significance of the second part of my hon. Friend's Amendment No. 171. If that Amendment were made it would be clear that whenever a local authority made an order of this kind the Minister would be responsible for the fact that it had been made, or responsible for not having taken some action, and he could be questioned in this House about it. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary satisfactorily proved that Amendment No. 171 was unnecessary. He showed us that under the Government Amendment, publicity has to be given to the making of the order, but I do not think it follows that the Minister has to regard this as a factor he must take into consideration before he confirms an order.

Nor am I at all satisfied with such answer as the Parliamentary Secretary made to my hon. Friend's other objection. Why is this power given twice over, both to the Minister who can use it for the country as a whole or for particular areas, and to local authorities each for their own area? If I understand aright, if this power is to be used at all it is to be used on grounds of general national policy. I should have thought that if the power is to be there at all it should be in the hands of the Minister alone and not in the hands of the Minister and local authorities as well.

It does not seem that the Parliamentary Secretary has answered the objections. I expect my hon. Friend will wish to press his Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Corfield

I wish to make one or two points in relation to what the hon. Member for Fulham has said. Once we give a grant to anyone we imply, or are taken to imply, that there is, so to speak, a guarantee that the fuel will be there. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is there."] If hon. Members saw some of the rather pathetic cases I have seen in my duties where local authorities have given improvement grants and then found that the houses fall within a clearance area, they would not take this matter so lightly. We have to take very seriously the psychological effect of a grant should something happen to the supplies of the appliances proved for that reason ineffective or inefficient.

The second point I make is that the hon. Member for Fulham was quite right in saying that the fuel situation changes. It changes both locally and nationally and there can be different changes in different localities. This is the answer to his question: why put this power in the hands of local authorities as well as in the hands of the Minister? Local authorities are enjoined to select the areas they are to designate as clean air areas in relation to supplies of fuel available. It may well be that they have different ideas in regard to fuels and appliances for different areas. I am certain it is right that they should be required to take these into account and where there is likely to a big demand which cannot be met they should have this power.

Thirdly, I remind the House, especially in view of the suggestion that this is prohibiting the use of a bar fire, that the vast majority of bar fire appliances sold in the shops are portable and have never been the subject of grant. The revocation by this Amendment would not be so drastic as is made out. Fourthly, I remind the House that my right hon. Friend or the Minister of the day is responsible to the House for confirming orders and, therefore, for conditions attached to them.

I should not have thought that was giving a power because it is initially in the hands of the local authority over which Parliament will have no control. If the Minister had to answer for an order which was based on one of these resolutions he would be as responsible as if he made the distinction himself in the first place. He is responsible for confirming the order, subject to any of the conditions attached to it.

Mr. Ross

Then why is subsection (2) necessary?

Mr. Corfield

That is the local authority subsection and subsection (3) is the ministerial subsection.

I have explained that the situation varies enormously from one locality to another and that it is sensible for a local authority which has to select an area to do so in relation to the fuels available. If, in view of the peak load on electricity, it is undesirable positively to encourage the use of direct electrical heating apparatus, then it is surely right for the local authority to consider this matter at the outset.

Question put, That "If" stand part of Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 120.

Division No. 73.] AYES [9.56 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Green, Alan Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S) Gurden, Harold Partridge, E.
Allason, James Hall, John (Wycombe) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Peel, John
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Percival, Ian
Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Barlow, Sir John Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Pitt, Dame Edith
Barter, John Hiley, Joseph Price, David (Eastleigh)
Batsford, Brian Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Biffen, John Hirst, Geoffrey Pym, Francis
Bingham, R. M. Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Holland, Philip Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Bishop, Sir Patrick Hornby, R. P. Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Black, Sir Cyril Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Bourne-Arton, A. Hughes-Young, Michael Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Iremonger, T. L. Roots, William
Braine, Bernard Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry James, David Russell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Jennings, J. C. Scott-Hopkins, James
Buck, Antony Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Seymour, Leslie
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Sharples, Richard
Campbell, Gordon Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Shaw, M.
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Skeet, T. H. H.
Channon, H. P. G. Kershaw, Anthony Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Chichester-Clark, R. Kimball, Marcus Stainton, Keith
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Kirk, Peter Stevens, Geoffrey
Cleaver, Leonard Kitson, Timothy Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Cole, Norman Lancaster, Col. C. G. Storey, Sir Samuel
Corfield, F. V. Linstead, Sir Hugh Studholme, Sir Henry
Coulson, Michael Litchfield, Capt. John Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Loveys, Walter H. Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Crawley, Aidan Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Cunningham, Sir Knox McAdden, Sir Stephen Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Dalkeith, Earl of Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. McMaster, Stanley R. Turner, Colin
Digby, Simon Wingfield Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
du Cann, Edward Maddan, Martin Tweedsmuir, Lady
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Markham, Major Sir Frank van Straubenzee, W. R.
Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Marten, Neil Vickers, Miss Joan
Farey-Jones, F. W. Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Wade, Donald
Farr, John Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Walker, Peter
Finlay, Graeme Mawby, Ray Ward, Dame Irene
Fisher, Nigel Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Whitelaw, William
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Mills, Stratton Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Freeth, Denzil Miscampbell, Norman Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. More, Jasper (Ludlow) Woodhouse, C. M.
Gammans, Lady Morrison, John Worsley, Marcus
Glover, Sir Douglas Neave, Airey Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Gower, Raymond Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant-Ferris, R. Page, Graham (Crosby) Mr. McLaren and
Mr. MacArthur.
Bacon, Miss Alice Dalyell, Tam Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Bence, Cyril Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hannan, William
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Deer, George Harper, Joseph
Blackburn, F. Delargy, Hugh Hayman, F. H.
Blyton, William Dempsey, James Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Boardman, H. Dodds, Norman Hilton, A. V.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.) Doig, Peter Holman, Percy
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Driberg, Tom Houghton, Douglas
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley) Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Brockway, A. Fenner Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Hunter, A. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Evans, Albert Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Fernyhough, E. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Fitch, Alan Janner, Sir Barnett
Carmichael, Neil Forman, J. C. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Cliffe, Michael Galpern, Sir Myer Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Collick, Percy Gourlay, Harry Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Grey, Charles Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Oram, A. E. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Kelley, Richard Oswald, Thomas Small, William
Lawson, George Parkin, B. T. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Pavitt, Laurence Spriggs, Leslie
Lewes, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Lipton, Marcus Pentland, Norman Stones, William
McBride, N. Prentice, R. E. Swain, Thomas
MacColl, James Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Swingler, Stephen
MacDermot, Niall Probert, Arthur Symonds, J. B.
McLeavy, Frank Rankin, John Taverne, D.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Redhead, E. C. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Manuel, Archie Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Thornton, Ernest
Mapp, Charles Rhodes, H. Wainwright, Edwin
Mendelson, J. J. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Warbey, William
Millan, Bruce Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Whitlock, William
Milne, Edward Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilkins, W. A.
Mitchison, G. R. Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon) Ross, William Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mulley, Frederick Short, Edward Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Neal, Harold Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Oliver, G. H. Skeffington, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
O'Malley, B. K. Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Mr. McCann.

10.5 p.m.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Forward to