§ Where an act or event which apart from this section could be chargeable under any of Cases A to F consists of or is closely related to the sale or disposition of a dwelling house occupied by the person by or on behalf of whom the sale or disposition is made during three years immediately preceding such sale or disposition, or consists of or is closely related to a sale or disposition of any interest in such dwelling house, no levy shall be payable.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The right hon. Gentleman has had so much trouble with his own new Clauses with which he has been endeavouring to 1102 patch the rending fabric of the Bill that I imagine he will be thankful to have reached the stage at which other people move new Clauses. I am glad that you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, have selected this Clause for discussion, since it raises a very important issue. The issue is the position of the owner-occupier in respect of the levy.
On the earlier Bill, and to a lesser extent on this one, I endeavoured to draw the Minister's attention to the problems which this Measure was creating for the owner-occupier. I hope the righ hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that he seemed to be completely insensitive. Indeed, at one stage he tended to try to brush the whole issue off by suggesting that development value would not arise in the case of the disposal of owner-occupied property and that there was therefore no trouble. On further reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will, I think, realise that on that point he was wrong.
There are in my constituency a large number of small houses with gardens which, with the redevelopment which is constantly taking place throughout the Greater London Area, will be sold and redeveloped with higher densities of buildings and with higher buildings. When they are disposed of there will be, under the provisions of the Bill, alleged to be substantial development value and, therefore, a substantial charge imposed by way of the levy.
Perhaps because the right hon. Gentleman has had two goes at the Bill—and it has been going on for quite a long time—there is a considerable failure on the part of people outside to realise what the Bill will do to them. This is certainly true in this particular field. People outside the House do not realise that, as the Bill stands, the ordinary person of modest means who has, through his personal sacrifice, become the owner-occupier of a house with a little land attached will find, when he either sells it or leases it for more than seven years, that he will be mulcted by the levy. This is not realised outside the House. It is one of the many respects in which people outside the House do not realise what the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are up to.
I must confine myself on the new Clause to the question of the owner-occupier. I have sought to draft the 1103 Clause so as to protect him. I have inserted in it the limitation that the concession will apply only where there has been owner-occupation for three years. It is designed to prevent any abuse of the Clause and any question of phoney owner-occupation.
Hon. Members may differ as to whether I have the period precisely right, but it is fair to say that, where someone has owned and occupied a house for three years, that is a genuine owner-occupation. If anything, I have drafted the Clause rather against the interests of those whom I am seeking to protect rather than excessively in their favour. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
It used to be the policy of all Governments to encourage owner-occupation. That has been the policy in fiscal matters for some considerable time. It is noteworthy that even under this Government, who have treated the owner-occupier in many respects extremely badly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done very much better in this respect than the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in imposing his Capital Gains Tax, provided an exclusion for the owner-occupier. I seek to write into the Bill something parallel to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought right to do in the interests of owner-occupation.
In view of the florid language which has been used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the merits of owner-occupation, and in view of the promises which they made in their election manifestoes, I hope I do not need to spend any time convincing them of something which is socially good and something which should be encouraged.
The owner-occupier has had a very rough time of it lately, despite the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is paying higher mortgage interest than he has ever paid in our history. He is finding houses more expensive to buy than ever before in our history. Both the capital sum which he has to find and the interest which he has to pay on it are higher than ever before. Therefore, if the professions and promises of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they wish to encourage owner-occupation are sincere and genuine, it is increasingly 1104 urgent that they should do something to help and encourage the owner-occupier.
7.30 p.m.
I suggest to the House that my proposal will do this. One of the motives—and it is a very respectable motive—which induces many of our fellow countrymen to seek the opportunity of making the sacrifices which are involved in taking out a mortgage is the knowledge that they are creating a capital asset for themselves and for their dependants. Although one has to forgo a great deal of spending which would be very pleasant, one is creating the capital asset of an owner-occupied house.
If we impose the levy which the Bill proposes to slap upon the owner-occupier, we very much diminish that incentive. I suggest that that is wrong. In the Conservative Government we tried to help the owner-occupier in a variety of ways. We helped particularly by raising the lower limit of Estate Duty. This was deliberately designed to help the person whose capital possession, possibly his sole capital possession, is a modest house. We succeeded in raising the figure in order to clear estates which consisted mainly of houses of this character. That is surely the right social policy—to seek to encourage our fellow citizens in all ways, including helping them to create a capital asset which will benefit them and their dependants, to undertake the sacrifices involved in owner-occupation.
I sometimes doubt whether the Government are sincere in what they say about the owner-occupier. They put far too much emphasis in their housing policy on the encouragement of council building, to the detriment of private enterprise. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House affirmed again and again when he was Minister of Housing his enthusiasm for encouraging owner-occupation. It would not be consistent with that attitude on the part of the Government to impose under the Bill a further burden on the owner-occupier.
Yet this is what the Bill will do if it stands in its present form without my new Clause. I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is an acid test of the Government's sincerity and enthusiam for the owner-occupier that this concession should be made. I do 1105 not know whether the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us how much it would cost. I doubt whether the cost would be substantial. But substantial or not, I hope that the House will realise that we are not asking for relief from any existing impost; we are merely asking for exclusion from an additional charge.
All this arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has adduced in support of the Bill tend to support the new Clause. We have been told of the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to help people to get their houses more cheaply and to help people with their housing problems. If the right hon. Gentleman really means that, does he mean to stop once they have got the house and then to impose this additional burden on them thereafter? Does he intend to make it so much less remunerative than it need be for them, when the time comes, through death or change of job, perhaps, to dispose of the house?
I call in aid the right hon. Gentleman's own protestations of his and the Government's desire to help people with their housing problems in an owner-occupation sense. I am certain that a sound society will contain within it a great many owner-occupiers. Not everybody will be an owner-occupier. There are some people who, because of the nature of their jobs, must rent either from local authorities or from private landlords. But a society in which an increasing proportion of people own their own homes is a healthy society. This is recognised—the Milner Holland Committee's Report brings it out—throughout the civilised nations of Western Europe. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not by the Bill further to discourage owner-occupation, and I say to him, "If you cannot help, do not hinder."
§ Sir D. GloverThe whole house should thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for moving this new Clause.
It is deplorable that a Government in this day and age should be bringing in a Bill which will adversely affect the owner-occupier. Lip-service is paid by all political parties to the value of owner-occupation and yet, as months go by while the Government are in office, it becomes increasingly obvious that it is only lip-service and that the Government 1106 have a deep hatred for any owner of property, even the owner-occupied house.
There is no doubt that under the Bill there is a deliberate attempt to remove freehold ownership from the orbit of the individual and that the object of the Bill in the long run is to turn all land, whether that owned by the owner-occupier or not, into a Crown leasehold. What is a Crown leasehold? We must bear in mind the evils of leasehold about which the Labour Party have complained so bitterly from time to time in the House. Crown leasehold is taking away the right of the individual to own property without any let or hindrance and without any obligation to anybody else. In other words, it is to put the State shackles on the freedom of the individual.
Yet the Government propose to do this to owner-occupiers at a time when they are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the finances to continue the housing programme on the basis which we had planned when we were in office. The Government are running into increasing difficulties. To put anything in the way of more and more people becoming owner-occupiers must be against the national interest, and yet this is what the Bill will do.
When buying or building a house a man is not doing it only for himself. He is thinking about the future of his family. If any levy of any sort is imposed on such a person, that is a bigger argument in that person's mind against entering into the financial commitment, which in many cases is a very heavy burden for 25 years during his purchase of the house. When entering into the commitment to buy his own house a man is conscious that it may be the only property that he may leave when he dies. He wishes to be assured that his wife will have security of tenure in that house.
If he has to find the money for this additional burden, even though it be limited, it will mean that he will ask himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. If he decides that it is not worth it because of this additional burden, the State will have a greater number of people searching for somewhere to live, and this will be an added burden for the State to undertake.
The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may think that this is very desirable. They would like us all to be 1107 servants and dependants of the State because in those circumstances, they feel, they will have greater control of us in the future. It is becoming clear that, deep down, the Socialist Party have a hatred of anybody owning any property. They think that the State should own it all.
I will not delay the House. I have said enough. But I should like it placed on record that when we are discussing my right hon. Friend's new Clause, which I think ought to be accepted without any further argument, we have the Minister, his Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Whip on the Benches opposite, and no other Socialist Member sufficiently interested even to come to listen to the debate which affects the future of millions of people who have entered into commitments to be independent and to own their own property.
§ Sir J, FosterI draw attention to one aspect of this policy in connection with the present economic situation. The Prime Minister has emphasised the importance of workers moving from one part of the country to another where necessary. Thus, anything which makes it more difficult to move from one house to another is bad for the economy. For example, we read in the papers that a workman in the Midlands, offered a job at Vauxhall's in the North, could not go because he could not find a house there.
That situation is mainly because of the breakdown of the Government's housing policy, but anything that makes it more difficult to move must be wrong. Obviously, not only is there the human reluctance to pay the levy to the Government, but there is also a good financial reason why one should not pay it. Let us suppose that the levy on a house is £200 if the owner sells it. Let us assume that he has the opportunity of another house in the North. If he sells his own house in order to move, he must pay £200 to the Land Commission. If he does not pay it and the price of his house steadily goes up, he has £200 of what would have been the Government's money working for him. It is contrary to the interests of the country to make it more difficult for a house owner who can get a job elsewhere to move there.
We have dealt with a complicated Schedule concerning the overlapping of 1108 Capital Gains Tax and the levy. The point of the Schedule was that if there was such overlapping the Capital Gains Tax could be deducted from the levy. It was done in a complicated way, but that was the objective. Here, the concession given on Capital Gains Tax is merely pro tanto and the Capital Gains Tax policy thus runs counter to the policy in the Bill. The Government should at least have said that the levy should be reduced by the amount of Capital Gains Tax as it would have been paid if it had been leviable. That is not a complicated calculation compared with what we have seen in other Schedules. If a man had paid £100 from his house and sold at £175, then the Capital Gains Tax would have been on £25 which could have been taken for the levy for development.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithI associate myself with the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) in favour of this new Clause. My right hon. Friend stated, with characteristic clarity and eloquence, how great is the case for the encouragement of owner occupancy in the general context of our national life. I fully share that view and I need not take time in emphasising it.
I am on record for over 20 years in this House as having testified both to the value of owner occupancy in the social sense and to the need for greater housing provision and better standards. Outside the House, I hope that the fact that I am an honorary vice-president of the Building Societies' Association, on the one hand, and an honorary vice-president of the House Builders' Registration Council, on the other, bears some testimony to these facts.
7.45 p.m.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Government themselves have, up to a point, accepted the validity of this argument in favour of tempering the wind to some extent to the owner occupier by the treatment of the owner occupier in respect of Capital Gains Tax. Indeed, to go further back, in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there were some concessions and modifications in respect of 1109 house ownership. In the present context, unless this new Clause is accepted, there must be a retreat from that principle.
That retreat is all the more surprising because, even within the ambit of the Bill, there is some evidence of an acceptance by the Government of this principle. I am referring primarily, of course, to Clause 61, which carries an exemption from Case C levy in respect of single family dwelling houses built on land acquired before 23rd September, 1965. That is an exemption in respect of what might be called a full-blooded project of material development—that is to say, the erection at least of a building which is the major form of development.
If the Minister does not accept this new Clause, he will be denying to the resident owner-occupier of three years or more the benefit of an exemption in respect of a change which may arise in a matter of much less significant material development than that in respect of which at the moment exemption is granted under Clause 61. For example, there would be a liability, a chargeable event, if, related to sale or disposition of a house, there was, for example, an extension of the house greater than that carrying exemption under the General Development Order or the Third Schedule and thus not having any exemption under Clause 94(2).
I take that as only one example. If time did not press I could give a number of others, but that is as good as I need to illustrate the point. The Minister, having, as it were, swallowed the camel of Clause 61, should not strain at the gnat of giving exemption on what may be lesser cases, but nevertheless cases which will impose come financial burden on owner-occupiers of a sort that they should not be obliged to bear. The cumulative effects of such burdens will be to discourage owner occupancy and will, as my right hon. Friend said, therefore be to the social detriment of the community. I therefore join with those who have expressed the hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause.
§ Mr. CostainI should like to associate myself with my right hon. and hon. Friends in support of the new Clause. I am amazed that the Minister has not risen to his feet to say that he accepts the Clause on social grounds. It can only 1110 be that the Labour Government are so fundamentally against the owner-occupier that they cannot see the reasonable arguments which have been put forward, and so I appeal to the Minister as a builder on practical grounds to see whether that will reach his stony heart.
On practical grounds it must be appreciated by his Ministry and by him by now that there will not be enough valuers and experienced property agents to be able to give an assessment in all the cases which will occur. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Clause, he would immediately cut down the number of professional valuers required. We have already experienced having to put back revaluation for rating because there are not enough valuers, and this would be a simple process by which the right hon. Gentleman could adjust the position.
The second practical ground is that if the Minister does not accept the Clause, he will further dry up the supply of land, and the one thing we want to get on with the building programme is an increase in the supply of land. The Minister of Housing and Local Government knows the position very well and he must have informed the right hon. Gentleman of the facts and told him that one of the things which is holding up the building of houses for sale is the log jam of people selling existing houses, a jam caused by the difficulty of getting mortgages for second-hand houses. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless he gives the exemption for which we ask, he will make that position even more difficult?
When a second-hand house is being sold, the first thing which the original owner-occupier has to decide is whether he can afford to move to another and possibly a smaller house, at the time of his retirement, thus releasing a house to be available for a family which is waiting for a house. That owner-occupier calculates whether he can afford to move and to what sort of house he can afford to move and financially this is a critical time for him. Hanging over that calculation he now is to have an unknown levy. It may or may not be a lot, but it is the fact that it is an unknown levy which will be the straw on the camel's 1111 back. He will have this uncertain formula hanging over him and so he will not move.
Another case is that of the man with a slightly larger house in a suburban area, the sort of property which is required for higher density building. He will be in an even greater dilemma, because he will probably think that his levy will be greater. But that is just the sort of property for which the Minister should be looking. That is the sort of land which he should be trying to get developed, for if that kind of land is developed we will get the price of land down and attack speculation. I appeal to the Minister, if he will not accept the Clause on humanitarian or social grounds, to accept it on practical grounds.
§ Mr. WilleyI welcome the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) back to our discussions on the Land Commission. I apreciate a great deal of what he has said and what other hon. Members have said in this debate. Both sides of the House must remember that we are here considering the family and the home, a criterion which is very relevant when judging the records of Governments and political parties. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made it clear that it would be wrong to stigmatise the Bill as being patently against the owner-occupier and he gave an example of a provision in the Bill which, for very good reasons, would favour the owner-occupier. The most important consideration to the owner-occupier is what we do about mortgage rates, a subject with which we shall be dealing this Session. We shall also be dealing this Session with leasehold enfranchisement and we can then see what the reaction of the Conservative Party is. All of these things are part and parcel of the same subject.
It has been said that I am insensitive and the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) spoke of mobility. That is something which we have very much in mind. But the great majority of owner-occupiers will not be affected by the Bill at all and will not be affected by Capital Gains Tax. If I sell my home for £5,000, I shall not be subject to tax, because I shall have to provide for myself a home costing £5,000 1112 somewhere else. That is the reply to what was said about mobility.
But on this new Clause we are dealing with a different case where there is a redevelopment value, which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said would be a substantial value. This is a separate factor. I thought that both sides of the House agreed about betterment. If it is right to take part of the betterment, it is right in this case, too. There is no difference between us about the home and the owner-occupier and his liability to Capital Gains Tax, but if we are concerned about development value, that is a value in which the community should share.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe right hon. Gentleman said that the great majority of owner-occupiers would not be affected by the levy. In other words, he said that for the great majority of them there will be no development value. Can he give figures to show how many of the present number of owner-occupied houses—I think that it is about 7 million—will have development value and what number will not?
§ Mr. WilleyNo, I could not. I can give the common experience of all of us, that in the majority of cases no question of development value would arise.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterCan I press the right hon. Gentleman on this issue, which is crucial? If the ordinary small house in my constituency with a small garden gets planning permission for redevelopment, there is no doubt that it will attract some additional value. Surely in every one of those cases there must therefore be an element of development value which would attract the levy.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithFurther to that, is it not the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage that as a means of making more housing provision without necessitating an encroachment upon open land or the green belt?
§ Mr. RipponWill the Minister agree that of the 7 million owner-occupied houses probably 6 million will be affected by this provision?
§ Mr. Graham PageI was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman might answer those figures, which seem to be very relevant. I will return a little later to 1113 his allegation that the majority of dwelling houses will not have any development value.
Because the Bill is called the Land Commission Bill, many people have thought that it affects merely the great landed estates and areas of land and have never realised that the levy is a levy also on bricks and mortar, not only on factories and offices and things like petrol stations and restaurants, but on dwelling houses and on the homes of the people. It is no good saying that most dwelling houses will not have any development value. If that were true, it might be a very good argument for exempting them from the Bill altogether, because if most of them are not to have any development value, why should the transactions in them be reported to the Commission with all the palaver of valuation and so on? This is not the case. It is no exaggeration to say that every prewar house has a development value. There is the possibility that planning permission could be obtained and development of the house carried out. This is true of many more recently built houses.
8.0 p.m.
There is no doubt that there is the risk, on the sale of every dwelling house, of a levy being exacted. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that by bringing them into the Bill and refusing to exempt them. He believes that there is something to be gained and every buyer and seller of a home runs this risk.
I suppose that I ought to have disclosed at an earlier stage that I am a director of a building society, since this is particularly relevant to this new Clause. In that position I know that at present, by reason of Government policy, we are faced with a very serious falling-off in demand for houses. When there is a falling-off in demand, less houses are built, because builders immediately contract business to meet the lower demand. They are now forecasting that less houses will be built next year than are being built this year. Already this Government's policies have produced less houses this year than last year.
The whole housing programme is in a chaotic state. Added to that we are now to have this further deterrent of a levy on the sale of people's homes. The vendors 1114 of houses will be in doubt about the amount of levy, and they may hesitate to sell because they do not know what their liability out of the purchase money will be or, if they do sell, they will add to the selling price in order to cover what one of my hon. Friends called this unknown levy. It will be a deterrent, not only because of the vendor's price but again because the purchaser, once he has bought his home, may have to move to another district because of his employment. He will then have to pay, out of the sale money, any levy, so that he may well think that it would be far better to take a short tenancy and thus avoid being landed with the levy.
There is no doubt that the owner occupier should have been exempted from this Bill. It is not a matter of argument, logic and reason. It is a matter of common sense, having regard to the Government's policies. Why should a man not be entitled to betterment of his own home without being charged a levy upon it?
§ Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)I wish to associate the Liberal Members of this House with the remarks which have been made in support of this new Clause, not only on the ground of home ownership, in which I firmly believe, but because the Minister has so signally failed to counter the argument that this will be a great hindrance to mobility. He painted a picture of the small property market which was uttrely and depressingly static, as though generations of our people are to be condemned to buy and sell those wretched little houses put up during bad periods. He suggested that there would be no redevelopment whatever of small plots. This is not my picture of the Britain that we hope to have. The development of very small plots is urgently required and I look forward to it happening at an early date, if we can get the economy right.
If the Government had chosen to deal with this urgent problem of betterment by means of an annual charge, then it would be a stimulus to people to get rid of their property and to move, and I could have seen the force of the Minister's objections. Since they have decided to deal with this problem by the blunt instrument of a levy, only on realisation, I shall recommend my hon. Friends to support this new Clause if it is pressed to a Division.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
1116§ The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 197.
1117| Division No. 181.] | AYES | [8.5 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Astor, John | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Hastings, Stephen | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) |
| Awdry, Daniel | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Baker, W. H. K. | Heseltine, Michael | Pardoe, John |
| Batsford Brian | Hiley, Joseph | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Holland, Philip | Percival, Ian |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Hooson, Emlyn | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Hordern, Peter | Pounder, Rafton |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Pym, Francis |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Burden, F. A. | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Carlisle, Mark | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Roots, William |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Clegg, Walter | Kimball, Marcus | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Cooke, Robert | Kirk, Peter | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Corfield, F. V. | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Smith, John |
| Costain, A. P. | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Crouch, David | Loveys, W. H. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Dance, James | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Talbot, John E. |
| Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | MacArthur, Ian | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Eden, Sir John | McMaster, Stanley | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Elliott, R. w. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Maginnis, John E. | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Marten, Neil | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| Farr, John | Mathew, Robert | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Fisher, Nigel | Maude, Angus | Webster, David |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Fortescue, Tim | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Whitelaw, Willliam |
| Foster, Sir John | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Monro, Hector | Worsley, Marcus |
| Gower, Raymond | More, Jasper | Wylie, N. R. |
| Grant-Ferris, R. | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Younger, Hn. George |
| Grieve, Percy | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | |
| Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gurden, Harold | Murton, Oscar | Mr. Anthony Grant and |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Mr Reginald Eyre. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) |
| Albu, Austen | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Crawshaw, Richard | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Alldritt, Walter | Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Floud, Bernard |
| Anderson, Donald | Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Ford, Ben |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Dalyell, Tam | Forrester, John |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Fowler, Gerry |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Galpern, Sir Myer |
| Baxter, William | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Cardner, Tony |
| Beaney, Alan | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Garrett, W. E. |
| Bence, Cyril | Davies, Robert (Cambridge) | Garrow, Alex |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Delargy, Hugh | Gourlay, Harry |
| Bishop, E. S. | Dell, Edmund | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) |
| Blackburn, F. | Dempsey, James | Gregory, Arnold |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Dewar, Donald | Grey, Charles (Durham) |
| Boardman, H. | Dickens, James | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Booth, Albert | Dobson, Ray | Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) |
| Boyden, James | Doig, Peter | Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Dunn, James A. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Bradley, Tom | Dunnett, Jack | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Hannan, William |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Eadie, Alex | Haseldine, Norman |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Hazell, Bert |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Henig, Stanley |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Ellis, John | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret |
| Cant, R. B. | English, Michael | Hooley, Frank |
| Carmichael, Neil | Ennals, David | Homer, John |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Ensor, David | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Chapman, Donald | Faulds, Andrew | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) |
| Coe, Denis | Fennyhough, E. | Howie, W. |
| Coleman, Donald | Finch, Harold | Hoy, James |
| Concannon, J. D. | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Morris, John (Aberavon) | Sheldon, Robert |
| Hunter, Adam | Moyle, Roland | Shore, Peter (Stepney) |
| Hynd, John | Newens, Stan | Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E) |
| Janner, Sir Barnett | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Oakes, Gordon | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Ogden, Eric | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | O'Malley, Brian | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Kelley, Richard | Orme, Stanley | Small, William |
| Kenyon, Clifford | Oswald, Thomas | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Lawson, George | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Owen, Will (Morpeth) | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Palmer, Arthur | Symonds, J. B. |
| Lomas, Kenneth | Pannen, Rt. Hn. Charles | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, w.) |
| Loughlin, Charles | Park, Treyor | Thornton, Ernest |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Tinn, James |
| Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Tomney, Frank |
| McBride, Neil | Pent land, Norman | Varley, Eric G. |
| McCann, John | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Macdonald, A. H. | Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Price, William (Rugby) | Whitlock, William |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Probert, Arthur | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| MacPherson, Malcolm | Randan, Harry | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Manuel, Archie | Rankin, John | Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Mapp, Charles | Rhodes, Geoffrey | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Marquand, David | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Maxwell, Robert | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Woof, Robert |
| Mendelson, J. J. | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Millan, Bruce | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) | |
| Miller, Dr. M. S. | Rose, Paul | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | Rowland, Christopher (Meriden) | Mr. Ioan L. Evans |