HC Deb 21 February 1967 vol 741 cc1441-51

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and to insert: and falling within one of the two following categories—

  1. (i) houses which would have been eligible for an Exchequer subsidy calculated in accordance with section 2, or paragraph (a) or (b) of section 3(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962 had this Act not been passed, and which are or have been completed on or after 25th November 1965.
  2. (ii) houses for which proposals for their provision were or are submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval on or after 25th November 1965'.
The reason for our putting down the Amendment is that the Scottish Housing Bill, which we are now considering, was published soon after the Summer Recess and it was considered in the Scottish Grand Committee and later in the Scottish Standing Committee during November and December. The similar English Housing Bill, the Housing Subsidies Bill, did not appear until about 5th December.

We had understood from the appearance in the previous Session of Parliament of similar Bills, which were cut short by the General Election, that there would be similarity in the two Measures, Scottish and English, concerning basic subsidies. But in the Scottish Standing Committee we had already considered all the relevant Clauses of the Scottish Bill before the English Bill was published and we could see what it contained.

We understood that the reason for the delay in the appearance of the English Bill was the intention to add a United Kingdom provision for the new option mortgage scheme. There was clearly substance in that rumour, because when the English Housing Subsidies Bill appeared it contained a Part II covering the option mortgage scheme.

We also noticed, however, as soon as the English Bill appeared that there was a major difference between the two Bills. Both Bills contained arrangements for basic subsidies, which are to be on a new basis related to interest rates. In both Bills, however—and this was a provision which had been added to both Bills since their predecessors of the last Parliament were introduced—there were also arrangements whereby some local authorities, which were defined in each Bill, would be able to have certain houses back-dated for the purpose of the basic subsidy. In the Scottish Bill, for example, houses in general would become eligible for the basic subsidy if approval had been requested from the Secretary of State on or after 25th November, 1965, but for certain local authorities the date was to go back to 1st January, 1965. Those are the provisions in the Scottish Bill.

When we saw the English Bill, however, we noticed that there was a different arrangement. In the English Bill, it is houses which have been completed on or after 25th November, 1965, which in the special local authority category are to have back-dating. The difference is that that special category in the Scottish Bill consists of houses for which applications have been made after 1st January, 1965, but that in the English Bill it is houses completed on or after 25th November, 1965, a difference of about 11 months.

Hon. Members on both sides will appreciate that for most houses a period of longer than 11 months is usual between application for approval and completion. Therefore, under the English Bill, there are bound to be a considerable number more houses which were applied for well before 1st January, 1965, which will be eligible for this special treatment.

In Committee, the Minister of State told us that the building of houses in Scotland averages about 15 months. When we asked him about multi-storey buildings, he said that it was about 21 months. It is clear, therefore, that with the 11 months' difference—and, on the one hand, the question of submission for approval and, on the other hand, actual completions—there is a considerable advantage to England in the way that the English Bill is drafted. With the English provision, many more houses would be eligible.

The vital point in this matter is that it covers a known period in the past when interest rates were very high. Under the new system of relating the basic subsidy directly to interest rates, there will clearly be uncertainty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after his conference at Chequers with the Finance Ministers of other countries, is successful in bringing down interest rates, there will be considerable uncertainty about the amounts of the basic subsidy in the future.

It can be said that the local authorities nevertheless had the safeguard that the subsidy is tied to the interest rate, but we are talking about a known period in the past when interest rates were very high and, therefore, large subsidies were payable. It therefore appears to be a discrimination, which is quite inexplicable, against Scotland that this provision should be contained in the English Bill and not in the Scottish Bill, particularly as we had no opportunity to see this when we considered the Bill in Committee, the English Bill having come out only on 5th December when we were completing the Committee stage of the Scottish Bill.

I recognise that there may be technical imperfection in our Amendment, but its meaning is clear. Its intention, which should be clear beyond doubt to the Government, is that Scotland should in this respect receive as good treatment as England is receiving under the English Bill. I hope that even if they see fault in the drafting of the Amendment, the Government will state clearly whether they agree to the change which we suggest. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he will correct this anomaly.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

The purpose of the Amendment is retrospectively to give local authorities in Scotland some kind of safeguard and protection from a period during which interest rates were extremely high. This had a devastating effect upon the finances of local authorities. The Amendment does not ask for special treatment. We are merely asking for similar treatment for Scotland as was included in the English Bill.

It is alarming to have the situation that the Scottish Bill is less advantageous than that for the rest of the country. In recent weeks, we have seen a number of examples of discrimination against Scotland by the Government. They are far too many and it is time that we had a clear indication from the Government that this kind of policy will not be pursued.

There are a number of facts which the Minister is under an obligation to give if he rejects the Amendment. The first and most obvious fact which should interest us is the time lag which is entailed between the two principles involved in the English and Scottish Bills.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Since the hon. Mem- ber thinks that there is discrimination against Scotland, is he advocating that the Scottish local authorities should get simply the same subsidy for houses as the English local authorities are to get?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Taylor

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the pattern of local authority house building in Scotland, particularly of multi-storey building, is such that to have the same subsidies would be intolerable because obviously the circumstances differ considerably.

Mr. G. Campbell

My hon. Friend will have noticed that the basic subsidies are to be the same for Scotland as they are for England, which is a change. There has always been a differential in the basic subsidy before.

Mr. Taylor

My hon. Friend is right. The basic subsidy is to be on exactly the same principle. But I thought that the point which the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made was about the pattern of housing. He knows very well that there is a very substantial difference in the pattern of housing.

We want to know, on the time lag, how long on average it takes to complete a house from the date when it is proposed. From the figures, it would seem that the difference is very substantial. In Scotland we have about 50,000 houses under construction. Last year, we completed, unfortunately, a relative small number—about 36,000. It would appear from this that it takes a period considerably in excess of one year to build an average house. If we take into account also the time spent in getting the plans approved, in changing them, and so on, clearly the time lag will be very considerable.

Secondly, we wish to know what this will mean in figures. If the Amendment were accepted, and if the principle of starting on the same dates were accepted by the Government, what would this mean to Scottish local authorities? I am sure that in preparing the arguments in reply to the Amendment the Government have made a calculation, and I think that we are entitled to know what it is.

The main argument which the Minister of State used in Committee against Amendments of this sort was the difficulty of calculation. When we suggested in an Amendment that the subsidy should be no less than it was under the 1962 Act, he said that it would be very difficult to estimate. He stated: I do not want people to spend all their time doing actuarial accounts … and having arguments with my officials … they have enough to do".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 17th November, 1966; c. 60.] I am sure that that is correct.

But we are not asking the Government to make a hypothetical assessment of what interest rates will be. The facts are all known. The calculations can be made, and I hope that the Government will have made them on the basis of the Clause as it stands and as it would read if it were amended by the Amendment. We are entitled to know the figures.

I am very surprised at the general argument which the Minister of State uses about the difficulty of making calculations. He almost tries to imply that sums are not his strong point. We all know to our cost in Scotland that sums, statistics and figures are a very strong point of the hon. Gentleman. He has almost invented a new brand of statistics which are inclusive, exclusive and flexible which can be taken to prove anything, to prove that our housing programme is booming ahead, and that the houses are tumbling out of the Dover House cornucopia when they are not. We are asking for a simple calculation.

There are three questions which must be answered. First, what is the reason for this differential in dates? It is not enough to say that the pattern is different. Secondly, we want an indication of the time lag involved between a house being approved and a house being completed. Thirdly, we want to know the cost involved. How much will this mean in cash? The Minister of State has an obligation t 3 answer these three questions. If we do not get answers to them the implications for Scottish housing will be clear.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

I welcome this opportunity to make clear a number of points on the application to Scotland which are difficult because of the procedural nature of the timing and the sequence of events, and so on. This is a very important matter for Scotland. The decision taken by the Secretary of State was very wise, and I hope that it will have the endorsement of the House.

I do not wish to go over the history of this matter. It was decided shortly after the Bill was presented in the last Parliament to make a special retrospective payment to those authorities which have done very well in a year when they had had no mere incentive than the previous housing subsidies. The suggestion in the Amendment is to apply the English solution to the distribution of that money. I do not quarrel with the fact that the Opposition may think that there is some merit in his application. It is quite remarkable—in fact, I think that it is quite urip-rcedented—for any Government to be willing to make a gesture to local authorities in addition to what was in a White Paper changing the housing subsidies. Usually housing subsidies are related to the date of the publication of the White Paper.

In this case, the special retrospective subsidy was made in respect of England on the basis of slum statistics. Those of us acquainted with the Scottish housing problem l now that one thing which it lacks remarkably badly is statistics. We know that many authorities in Scotland do not mace comprehensive slum returns. The best example is Glasgow. But if we were to apply strictly the English solution, which is to relate the retrospective subsidy to the slum returns, the result would be very awkward and, I think, unacceptable. The House will recall that the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Leader of the House, and the present Minister of Housing and Local Government took the view that special retrospective assistance should go to a small number of local authorities in England and Wales. They defined those authorities as those with more than 12½ per cent. slums or at least 10 per cent. excess of households over dwellings and with a large current house building programme. On this restricted basis the Minister was able to make additional assistance available in England and Wales for all houses completed on and after 25th November, 1965. Only 54 English and Welsh authorities qualified under that definition.

I do not quarrel with the solution in England. If I were an English Minister, I should think it perfectly sound. But I invite the House to consider how we could apply it to Scotland. First, the figures are not available on the same scale that they are available in England. When the Secretary of State considered the English formula, it was perfectly clear that if we adapted it to the Scottish situation the following communities would get nothing: Glasgow—

Mr. G. Campbell

We do not suggest in the Amendment that the English formula for distinguishing one category of local authority from another should be adopted. We suggest that this should be done in the Scottish way in the Scottish Bill, but that the timing should be altered. Clearly there are differences between England and Scotland which are looked after by the two different formulae. But having separated the special group of local authorities which need assistance, surely the same system on timing should be adopted.

Dr. Mabon

I do not agree. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in government, when these decisions are made to give extra money, whether it be by general grant, housing subsidy, or in respect of fishing, agriculture, or anything to do with the United Kingdom—and it has to be broken up on a Scottish-English basis—if a different formula is applied in Scotland from the formula applied in England difficulties might arise.

The English settlement stands on its own. It would not be possible to apply the English solution fairly to Scotland and to bring in those whom we felt deserved the bonus for having built houses at a time of high interest rates when there was no prospect of a change in subsidies. It was not as an incentive but as a direct reward in a period when people had no incentive.

I do not quarrel with any of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Government came into office on 15th October, 1964, but they did not produce their White Paper on housing subsidies until 25th November, 1965. In that period, all that the local authorities had to rely on were the exhortations of Ministers and the promise that something would be done, but no local authority had the experience of being told that it would get subsidy on a house which it was actually submitting. It believed that it got subsidy in most. if not in all, cases from when the White Paper was produced. In 1956, and I think in 1962. the date of the White Paper was the date of application of the subsidy, and so it was to be here. The previous Bill applied the subsidy from 25th November, 1965.

The burden of my argument is that changing the indices of selection for the Scottish solution gives a better solution than by simply applying the straight English formula to the Scottish scene. We have also to take into account whether it should be on approvals or completions. I think that it will be seen that we chose the right solution. If we had chosen the English formula, irrespective of whether we had taken it on completed houses, Glasgow would not have come out so well. Neither would Aberdeen, Clydebank, Coatbridge, Greenock, Motherwell, Paisley, Lanark County, West Lothian and many others with serious housing problems.

This might be called an Oliver Twist Amendment, in that it wants even more than the English are getting. In other words, it wants the Scottish formula with the English timing. But that cannot be done. We have been fortunate in getting a splendid retrospective change. It is the first time in housing legislation that that has been done. Given that we have to distribute it on some basis, I hope that the Opposition will agree with me that it would be wrong to distribute it on the English basis. I should not like to give the names of authorities which would have benefited, but certainly they could not include such authorities as Glasgow, Aberdeen, Clydebank, Coatbridge, Greenock, Motherwell, Paisley, Lanark County and West Lothian which ought to benefit. If those were excluded by the formula, it would have been quite intolerable and the subject of a heated debate in the House.

4.15 p.m.

Given the fact that we have the formula as we have it in the Bill, the application had to be for houses approved as at 1st January, 1965. I admit that we are taking the formula which was laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the 1962 Act on the question of need. The party opposite laid down a perfectly fair criterion which operated well in 1962 and which created the so-called £12 and £32 authorities. We have taken it that those who qualify under that assessment as a £32 authority and those who come within the formula in other respects will have subsidy paid, and we have been thanked by many local authorities and congratulated for doing something quite remarkable in that regard.

I do not want to get into a party argument, but I stress that the special retrospective subsidy is unusual. There was no indication from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they intended to support these retrospective subsidies. They did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading in the last Parliament, and therefore it is fair for them to say that they would probably welcome them in this Parliament, but they cannot claim that they would have introduced these retrospective subsidies. I have looked through quite a number of pronouncements by the hon. Gentleman and others about this, and it is clear that they had no other solution than that which we propose, or that they felt that they would extend the Scottish proposals along the lines of the timing of the English provision.

If hon. Gentlemen opposite are using this Amendment as a probing exercise, it is a tolerable one. If not, it would be received with cynicism that we should be considering such an Amendment at this stage.

Division No. 273.] AYES [4.17 p.m.
Abse, Leo Allen, Scholefield Ashley, Jack
Albu, Austen Anderson, Donald Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Armstrong, Ernest Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Mr. G. Campbell

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the point, because the English Bill had not appeared with this in it? When he says that we had not said anything about this before, it was because we had no idea of this difference when we discussed it on the last occasion.

Dr. Mabon

I do not quarrel with that at all, and I welcome the debate because it gives the Government a chance to point out the distinction between the English formula and the Scottish formula, which we could not do in Committee. I hope that the debate will give the chance to hon. Gentlemen opposite of saying that the Government chose the right option—not the English option, but the formula devised in our own Bill.

I hope that the Amendment is not meant literally and that it is not intended to press it and seek to get a larger subsidy than is now proposed in the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite gave no indication that they wanted to give a retrospective subsidy to Scotland, never mind a bigger one than that which we propose. When they were in office, they never at any time proposed that. When one goes back to 1956 and recollects that the subsidy was virtually halved, it would seem to be too much to believe that this is a sudden burst of generosity which has swept over the Opposition.

If I am to believe that the Amendment is literal in what is means, then hon. Gentlemen opposite will divide the House. if that is not the case and the intention is to explore the matter, I would welcome the comments of hon. Gentlemen on whether or not, given that it can be applied only to approvals on 1st January, 1965, they agree on reflection that the formula which we have adopted is much better than the English formula applied to Scotland would have been, although the English formula is fair in the context of England and Wales.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left o it stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 141.

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Haseldine, Norman Orme, Stanley
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hattersley, Roy Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Joel Hazell, Bert Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Baxter, William Heffer, Eric S. Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Bence, Cyril Henig, Stanley Padley, Walter
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Hilton, W. S. Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Besse11, Peter Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, Ktown) Paget, R. T.
Bidwell, Sydney Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Palmer, Arthur
Binns, John Hooley, Frank Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bishop, E. S. Houghton, Rt. Hon. Douglas Pardoe, John
Blackburn, F. Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Park, Trevor
Blenkinsop, Arthur Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Booth, Albert Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Howie, W. Pavitt, Laurence
Bradley, Tom Hoy, James Pentland, Norman
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hunter, Adam Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Chapman, Donald Hynd, John Probert, Arthur
Coleman, Donald Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Randall, Harry
Conlon, Bernard Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Rankin, John
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Janner, Sir Barnett Redhead, Edward
Crawshaw, Richard Jeger, George (Goole) Reynolds, G. W.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Dalyell, Tam Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Richard, Ivor
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Judd, Frank Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kelley, Richard Rose, Paul
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Kenyon, Clifford Ross, Rt. He. William
Dempsey, James Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Dewar, Donald Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Sheldon, Robert
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Dickens, James Lawson, George Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Dobson, Ray Lee, John (Reading) Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Doig, Peter Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Driberg, Tom Lipton, Marcus Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dunn, James A. Lomas, Kenneth Slater, Joseph
Dunnett, Jack Luard, Evan Small, William
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lubbock, Eric Snow, Julian
Eadie, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Spriggs, Leslie
Edelman, Maurice Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) McBride, Neil Steele, Thomas (Durtbartonshire,W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McCann, John Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Macdonald, A. H. Swain, Thomas
Ellis, John McGuire, Michael Symonds, J. B.
Ensor, David Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Thornton, Ernest
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Thorpe, Jeremy
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mackie, John Tinn, James
Faulds, Andrew Mackintosh, John P. Urwin, T. W.
Fernyhough, E. Maclennan, Robert Varley, Eric G.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McNamara, J. Kevin Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston) MacPherson, Malcolm Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Foot, Sir Dingle (lpswich) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Watkins, David (Consett)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Manuel, Archie Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Ford, Ben Mapp, Charles Wellbeloved, James
Forrester, John Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fowler, Gerry Mayhew, Christopher Whitaker, Ben
Fraser, John (Norwood) Mellish, Robert Whitlock, William
Freeson, Reginald Mendelson, J. J. Wilkins, W. A.
Gardner, Tony Millan, Bruce Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Garrett, W. E. Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Ginsburg, David Moonman, Eric Winnick, David
Gourlay, Harry Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Winterbottom, R. E.
Gregory, Arnold Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Grey, Charles (Durham) Neal, Harold Woof, Robert
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phllip(Derhy,S.) Yates, Victor
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Norwood, Christopher
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Oakes, Gordon TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Ogden, Eric Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hamling, William O'Malley, Brian Mr. Walter Harrison.
Hannan, William Oram, Albert E.
Alison, Michael (Barkston-ASh) Black, Sir Cyril Bromley-Davenport,Lt. Col.SirWalter
Astor, John Blaker, Peter Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Baker, W. H. K. Bossom, Sir Clive Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Balniel, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)
Batsford, Brian Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Braine, Bernard Bullus, Sir Eric
Biffen, John Brewis, John Burden, F. A.
Biggs-Davison, John Brinton, Sir Tatton Campbell, Gordon
Carlisle, Mark Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Cary, Sir Robert Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Channon, H. P. G. Holland, Philip Orr-Ewing, Sir lan
Chichester-Clark, R. Hordern, Peter Osborn, John (Hallam)
Clegg, Walter Howell, David (Guildford) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Cooke, Robert Hunt, John Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Corfield, F. V. Hutchison, Michael Clark Peel, John
Costain, A. P. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Peyton, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Jopling, Michael Pink, R. Bonner
Crouch, David Kershaw, Anthony Pounder, Rafton
Cunningham, Sir Knox King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Dalkeith, Earl of Kirk, Peter Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Kitson, Timothy Ridsdale, Julian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Knight, Mrs. Jill Roots, William
Doughty, Charles Lambton, Viscount Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Russell, Sir Ronald
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Langford-Holt, Sir John Sharples, Richard
Errington, Sir Eric Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fortescue, Tim Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sinclair, Sir George
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Smith, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Longden,Gilbert Stodart, Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard Loveys, W. H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Goodhew, Victor McAdden, Sir Stephen Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Grant, Anthony MacArthur, Ian Tilney, John
Grant-Ferris, R. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Gurden, Harold McMaster, Stanley Vickers, Dame Joan
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maginnis John E. Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maude, Angus Walters, Dennis
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Mawby, Ray Ward, Dame Irene
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Webster, David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere More, Jasper Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hawkins, Paul Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Wylie, N. R.
Higgins, Terence L. Murton, Oscar
Hiley, Joseph Nabarro, Sir Gerald TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hirst, Geoffrey Neave, Airey Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Mr. Hector Monro.