§ For the purposes of section 2 of this Act the aggregate amount of the approved cost of the approved dwellings provided by a local authority which are completed in any one financial year shall not include the approved cost of any approved dwelling in respect of which the part of the cost incurred by the local authority in providing the dwelling referred to in subsection (3) of section 3 of this Act exceeds by more than 10 per centum the estimated cost at the time when the formal resolution of the local authority accepting the tender or estimate for, or approving the cost or estimated cost of the erection of, the dwelling was passed, provided that nothing in this section shall affect the Minister's discretion under section 3(4) of this Act.—[Mr. Allason.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. AllasonI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the Clause is to preclude the payment of subsidy where the actual cost exceeds the approved cost by more than 10 per cent. The approved cost is the cost of the site, the cost of the tender for building, and the estimate of costs which are unknown at the time when the scheme goes to the Ministry for approval. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that construction costs must approximate to his cost yardstick and that tenders which exceed his yardstick by more than 10 per cent. will be refused, even though all the costs above the yardstick would be borne by the local authority.
1596 The Clause deals with the case where the local authority ultimately pays more than the approved cost not because of exceptional site conditions below ground —which are allowed for separately in the Bill—but by the mere system of awarding contracts. When private enterprise is employed a fixed-price contract is usual, and it is unlikely that the Clause would be effective in that case because if the contractor made a loss on his estimating that loss would be borne by himself and there would be no loss by the council.
When a direct labour organisation is used, however, a different state of affairs has to be considered. We all know of cases where direct labour organisations quote a low tender and are awarded the contract only to discover, at a considerably later stage, that they cannot fulfil the contract at that price, and so the price goes up, and up, and up, and the ratepayer has to pay. We suggest that the Clause should operate in those circumstances.
I can give some examples to show how necessary this provision is. Many examples were given in Committee and I do not want to weary the House with them, but at Coventry there has been a loss of £30,000 on the Belgrade housing estate, which was two years behind schedule, and there are other examples. There was a loss of £52,000 in Coventry in connection with the Cheylesmore 1597 housing estate and £21,000 in respect of the building of a new police station. The latter is an interesting example. The direct labour department's tender was the lowest, but it was over-spent by no less than 29 per cent. The final cost of the police station was £99,492, that is, £17,000 above the highest tender originally submitted.
At Wolverhampton, last September, the council received a report that on three direct labour contracts no less than £23,000 had been over-spent. To bring the House up to date with the situation in Salford, the town clerk had estimated that a loss of—
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MellishIt is a pity that the hon. Gentleman should now wish to criticise Salford's direct labour system, although he has every right to do so, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). I think that he might have let my hon. Friend know. I am sure that he would, at least, have been here to listen to what the hon. Gentleman had to say if not to answer him.
§ Mr. AllasonI very much regret that the hon. Gentleman is not here—he can read the Notice Paper—but it is right that the House should be informed of the latest situation. It is directly relevant to the new Clause. We went into the matter carefully in Commitee, and I have information beyond what was given on 2nd February to bring the matter up to date.
The town clerk now estimates the loss on the direct labour works at £700,000. This is the difference between the quantity surveyor's valuation of the work done and the total known cost. In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Salford, East, gave a figure of £170,000. This is the amount for which the Salford council has to seek further loan sanction, that is to say, it is the difference between the total known cost and the loan sanctions which have already been obtained. But the more accurate figure of the loss is the estimate of over £700,000 made by the town clerk.
The Parliamentary Secretary described the situation of the Salford council at its meeting on 1st February, when it decided to refer the matter to an all-party committee to study the report of the National 1598 Building Agency and make recommendations. That sub-committee has now reported and the council considered the matter at its meeting on 1st March. The all-party sub-committee had considered reports from the town clerk from the National Building Agency and from the district auditor and the report of Mr. Kenneth Dale, an independent consultant. It recommended that Salford's direct works department should be run down to a repair and maintenance department only. This recommendation has gone to the council, which has rejected it and decided that the direct works department should be allowed to continue on current capital works contracts.
That is a sample of what happens under direct labour systems, which according to a recent circular, do not have to submit competitive tenders regularly. It is necessary, therefore, to have a check, and the new Clause would provide such a check on local authorities to ensure that, when they are awarding contracts, they do not let their ratepayers in for substantial extra sums over and above the original contract price. Local authorities should learn to look carefully at direct labour organisations. They should act swiftly when things go wrong and ensure correct tendering.
§ Mr. MellishThe hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has taken the opportunity afforded by this new Clause to make another all-out attack on what he calls direct labour organisations. I repeat what I said in Committee. I am not here to defend inefficiency, whether it comes from private enterprise or from direct labour. I know that I speak for everyone on a housing waiting list when I say that what people want is a home and that they do not care who builds the houses so long as they are built quickly and efficiently and the rents are reasonable. It is not for me, therefore, to defend direct labour organisations as such or to attack them. My purpose is to put the matter in proper perspective.
The total of direct labour output was 9 per cent. of the total number of local authority houses built last year. As local authority houses built last year totalled 180,000, it follows that direct labour built only 16,000 or thereabouts.
1599 I thought at the time we discussed this in Committee, and I still think, that the argument about direct labour has been grossly overstated. This is not to minimise individual cases of inefficiency or failure to have good book-keeping. I entirely agree that local authorities with direct labour organisations should take every care to see that they are efficient. The hon. Gentleman, however, has been less than fair in his argument so far. He will be the first to concede that private enterprise also is often inefficient. In Committee, I gave examples of occasions when direct labour had had to come to the help of local authorities because individual private contractors—it is only a small number—had fallen down on the job for one reason or another. Direct labour had to take over where they left off.
§ Mr. AllasonI made the point that, where there was a contract and private enterprise fell down, private enterprise bore the loss. Local authorities may fail to obtain a performance bond, but the new Clause would encourage them to make sure that they obtained a performance bond, in which case they would not be let down by their private enterprise contractors.
§ Mr. MellishWe cannot accept the new Clause. We certainly could not accept it for the great majority of the reasons which I understand the hon. Gentleman to advance, his object being, apparently, to keep an even greater check and control somehow or other on what he calls direct labour organisations. He knows very well that the whole basis of our cost yardstick is that, for the first time, we are as a Government determined to get good value for our money. We think that, with the vast amount of money we shall be paying out in subsidy, there should be a greater measure of control by Whitehall. This is why we are maintaining the cost yardstick system. It would be out of order to go into it in detail now. I spent a great deal of time in Standing Committee spelling out almost word by word what we had in mind.
There is still a difference of opinion between some local authorities and ourselves regarding what is called the 10 per cent. tolerance. I explained in Com- 1600 mittee that we would take difficult sites into account, that we would take into account certain regions—Bradford is a good example—where there is a great deal of subsidence, and for instance, difficult building conditions because of the contours of the land, and so on. We must adjust our yardstick to the conditions in which local authorities have to build.
When we talk of the yardstick, therefore, we mean it as a general principle, and in applying it we would allow local authorities to go above the yardstick cost by 10 per cent., provided that it was clearly understood that the 10 per cent. would not qualify for subsidy. If a local authority wants to go above that which we are prepared to accept as the cost yardstick—perhaps because it wants to build to an even higher standard than we think right—we would say that it can do so, but that it will have to pay for it. We have said that we will not agree to any scheme that goes above that 10 per cent. tolerance. There has been some disagreement over this, and one or two local authorities said that they would not accept it.
The hon. Gentleman must understand the basis of our yardstick. A great variety of schemes have been submitted to us over the last year or so, and in any normal scheme, if the design is reasonably economic, it should be possible for the local authority to obtain tenders as before from contractors who will undertake that scheme. If the scheme is abnormal because, for example, the site is difficult, the local authority can be given a higher ad hoc cost yardstick at the design stage.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we could not possibly accept his new Clause, because, in any case, it would be completely unacceptable to local authorities. They would be shocked if the Government were to accept it—representatives of every local authority would be at Whitehall tomorrow demanding interviews with the Minister. As the Bill is drafted, local authorities will receive subsidy on the erection tender figure or the yardstick figure, whichever is the less, even if the actual cost figure exceeds the estimated cost by 10 per cent. But under this new Clause no subsidy would be payable in such cases. One 1601 can imagine the reaction of local authorities to that idea.
In addition, the new Clause would add to the administrative burdens of local authorities, as in every case actual expenditure would have to be compared with estimated expenditure to find out whether the former exceeded the latter by more than 10 per cent. That work could delay a final settlement of subsidy by some months, or even by years. The new Clause is, therefore, unacceptable from that point of view.
We are determined to ensure that schemes, whether undertaken by private enterprise or by direct labour, will come within the measurement of our cost yardstick. Those who run direct labour departments had better be warned of this, and must clearly understand that it applies to them as much as anyone else and that their tenders for schemes will be rigorously examined before they are approved by my Department.
Once the cost yardstick is generally understood, as I am sure that it will be in a short time, it should help to speed up tender approval. If a scheme comes within that yardstick it is certain of virtual rubber-stamp approval by the Department. The fact that there is at present no such yardstick means that each scheme has to be looked at independently and compared with many other schemes, with resultant delay and a good deal of frustration. We often hear of approvals, starts and completions, and here Whitehall must take its share of blame for the time spent in this way.
For the reasons I have given, we are unable to accept the new Clause.
§ Mr. MurtonI am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking this direct labour question very seriously. It fell to me to initiate the original debate on this subject in the Standing Committee, and I was amazed at the furore in the country when it became known what expenditure certain local authorities had occurred by being over-ambitious.
The hon. Gentleman talks of there being a necessity for a check on direct labour and on private enterprise work, but the main point at issue is that if, for one reason or another, a direct labour organisation oversteps the mark it is the ratepayers who suffer, while if a private 1602 enterprise firm goes down through similar inefficiency its shareholders may suffer but not the general body of ratepayers. That is the important point.
The object of the new Clause is to tighten up the system. We do not object to direct labour, as such, provided that it is properly organised, properly controlled and adequately supervised, but we do not want to have it without those safeguards.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there will be very close scrutiny of direct labour costs and that the work will have to be on a competitive basis. It is very difficult to get a direct comparison with private enterprise tenders because in its costings the private firm has to take into account such things as all the time the men are completely out of productive work, back at the yard, with time wasted, and administrative costs. Is the cost of running the department throughout the year, with all the administrative and other costs attaching to the department, taken into account in the direct labour tender?
My impression is that many direct labour departments may produce very attractive costings for isolated jobs, but that by the time such items as administration, the work in the town clerk's department, travelling to and from the job, days in the yard when the men are doing nothing, and so on, are taken into account the jobs are not competitive at all. Direct labour departments have not the same stimulus as the private firm has. If the private firm goes too far it goes out of business, but the knowledge that the direct labour department has of the cushion that it has through the local authority makes it uncompetitive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to, that aspect of the matter.
§ Mr. ChannonIn this short but interesting debate, we are glad to have the honour of the presence of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), because when we are dealing with this subject the case of Salford is in every hon. Member's thoughts. We have tabled this new Clause because we feel that, as a result of the Government's doctrinaire Circular of 1965, direct labour departments have very unfair advantages over 1603 private firms. It is vital to protect the ratepayers, and especially to protect them from experiences which the hon. Member for Salford West must know only too well, and which have been described by one Salford borough councillor as the great rate robbery. I have evidence, not only from Salford but from all over the country of the extravagance of direct labour departments and the waste of ratepayers' money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) made a very valuable point with which I shall deal in a moment. First, however, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when we are to have the report —I have written to him about this, and I appreciate that he may not be able to answer me tonight—from the District Auditors Society which has been inquiring into the audit systems of direct labour departments. I believe that the Society was asked to inquire into this matter last July, and in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that when he had the Report he would talk to me about it. I should be glad to know when we may have some conclusions about it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West pointed out, one of the great complaints is about the accounting system of direct labour departments and about how the costs are to be fairly adjusted. The report we are likely to get from the District Auditors Society on the system of internal auditing will be of great assistance in learning all about this.
We were prompted to put down the new Clause because there have recently been so many appalling cases. We discussed in Committe the case of Southwark, which the Parliamentary Secretary will know well, and the case of Salford, which the hon. Member for Salford, West will know well. In the Southwark case, in spite of criticisms made by the National Building Agency, the chairman of the housing committee, Alderman Allen, is reported as saying that he hoped to build all council houses in future in Southwark —
§ Mr. MellishThis is so unlike the hon. Gentleman. I thought that we had cleared up this point in the Committee. He quotes an individual as saying something, but I thought that we had it on record 1604 that that was not the position and that one of the biggest contracts ever known in the Southwark area was to be given to private enterprise. The hon. Gentleman is not only rather unfair but is digging a bit deep, if I may use the term, when he starts raking all this up again. I did not want to get into this argument about direct labour being all that hon. Members opposite say it is, but I know that in very many instances it is doing a first-class job.
§ Mr. ChannonThe hon. Member has been very kind to me. First of all, he was kind enough to butter me up, and then when I say something that he does not like he gets very cross. I am sorry if I have not lived up to his high hopes. I remember the debate in Committee, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's point then was that in spite of the remarks of Alderman Allen the next contract that came along was given to private enterprise, and it was a very large contract. Fair enough—I accept that. What horrifies me is the attitude of mind. I have not heard it suggested that the chairman of the housing committee was misreported. If I had heard that, I would withdraw what I said. He has been reported as saying that he hoped to build nothing but council houses in future in Southwark. To say that as the chairman of a housing department whose direct labour department has been very severely criticised is something to be regretted.
I will deal with Salford, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who was not able to be present at the beginning of the debate. I regret what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) told the House a few moments ago, that the Salford Council has decided not to accept the recommendations of the all-party committee to make this a maintenance-only department in future. I am not surprised that this all-party committee should have made this recommendation when the history of the department is examined. We know that in Salford there has been overspending by about £700,000 over a period of several years.
As I pointed out in Committee, in 1957 the turnover of the Salford direct labour department was £91,000. In 1965 the turnover was £2,500,000. Very rightly, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said 1605 that he was not prepared to defend inefficiency anywhere. He ought to give the House the comments of his Department on this situation in Salford now that we have reached this pass. In January he was not prepared to comment because he said that his Department then had not had sufficient time to study the situation. We have now had almost another two months, and surely the Ministry has been watching this situation for a long time. After all, it has given loan sanction on what have proved to be grossly inaccurate estimates over a number of years. We would welcome the authoritative views, if there are any, of the Ministry on this matter.
I agree that there is a need for constant vigilance on this issue, and I know that it is not always easy. Overspending is discovered too late, but when it happens it is the ratepayers who have to pay the burden, and that is why we object so strongly. I have tried not to speak at great length, because there is much to discuss, but I hope that the House will recognise that we feel very strongly about this. We want to protect the ratepayer from the crying scandal which has existed in so many direct labour departments. If we were in Committee and I were able to speak again, I would cite innumerable cases of direct labour departments where the situation is unsatisfactory. I do not think that any are as bad as the Salford case, and I am sorry that it has happened.
I hope that we shall have a debate shortly in which the whole issue of direct labour departments and their workings can be discussed, because we wish to protect the ratepayer, and that is why we have moved this new Clause. We want to protect the ratepayer from the harsh and regrettable treatment which he receives as a result of the failures of direct labour departments in so many parts of the country and, alas, in Salford. For many years ratepayers there will he paying for what has taken place in the direct labour department. I am sorry that the Government are not prepared to accept this new Clause. We want to make progress, because we have immense lists of Amendments, and I hope that my hon. Friends, when the opportunity occurs, will agree with me and my hon. Friend and support us in the Lobby.
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member 1606 for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for raising the point about the Salford direct labour department when either myself or my hon. Friend was absent. The most thorough investigation, in the most open manner, has been held into the management of the department. I wish that it were possible to hold such an investigation into the affairs of some private industries. Changes have been made in the top administration, recommendations have been made, and ideas put forward by the appropriate Government Department and these have been incorporated into the new structure.
Salford Corporation has now decided, with these amendments, to go ahead with a direct labour department. In the past the department has served the city exceedingly well and there are many monuments in the area to its sterling work. Naturally, there are all sorts of problems. No one would defend inadequacies which may have existed. There was the problem of not having an architect's department of its own and these overlapping problems were very real. They have been brought to light and eradicated. I believe in the principle of direct labour building, and I hope to see it thrive and extended. There are many first-class examples of this, not least the work done in Salford.
I hope that after this frank and open disclosure and the improvements which have been made the Salford direct labour department will forge ahead on the lines suggested. It is no good the hon. Gentleman quoting the emotive remarks made by a Tory councillor at the meeting when this matter was discussed. It can well be imagined that political remarks such as that are thrown about at a meeting of that nature. This is not the considered view of the city council towards the matter, and that ought to be taken into account.
There is almost a sense of relish from the party opposite who are making such a meal out of this. They see direct labour as a threat to private enterprise building. The building industry needs a thorough overhaul from top to bottom. Much of the private building taking place is not, unfortunately, of a standard that many of us would like to see.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the debate.
§ Mr. OrmeI am sorry, I was answering the attack—I can only call it that—which has been made upon Salford direct labour department. I hope that with the developments now taking place in Salford, and with the assistance given by the Ministry, these remarks will be refuted and the ratepayers of Salford will
§ get full value for their money. I trust that we will reject this new Clause and get on with the Bill.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 170.
1609| Division No. 287.] | AYES | [7.30 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Murton, Oscar |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Nott, John |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Batsford, Brian | Heseltine, Michael | Percival, Ian |
| Bell, Ronald | Hill, J. E. B. | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pym, Francis |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Holland, Philip | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Brewis, John | Hornby, Richard | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Howell, David (Guildford) | Roots, William |
| Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Royle, Anthony |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Iremonger, T. L. | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Campbell, Gordon | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Carlisle, Mark | Jopling, Michael | Smith, John |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) |
| Cooke, Robert | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Crouch, David | Kirk, Peter | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Cunningham, Sir Knox | Kitson, Timothy | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Dance, James | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Teeling, Sir William |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Temple, John M. |
| Eden, Sir John | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Errington, Sir Eric | McAdden, Sir Stephen | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Farr, John | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John |
| Fortescue, Tim | McMaster, Stanley | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Walters, Dennis |
| Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Goodhew, Victor | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) | Webster, David |
| Grant-Ferris, R. | Miscampbell, Norman | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Gurden, Harold | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Wylie, N. R. |
| Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Monro, Hector | |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon,N.W.) | More, Jasper | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Grant and Mr. Eyre. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Albu, Austen | Coe, Denis | Forrester, John |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Concannon, J. D. | Fraser, John (Norwood) |
| Allen, Scholefieid | Crawshaw, Richard | Garrett, W. E. |
| Anderson, Donald | Dalyell, Tam | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. |
| Archer, Peter | Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Gourlay, Harry |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.) | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) |
| Ashley, Jack | Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Grey, Charles (Durham) |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Davies, Robert (Cambridge) | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Hamling, William |
| Barnett, Joel | Delargy, Hugh | Harper, Joseph |
| Baxter, William | Dempsey, James | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Bessell, Peter | Dickens, James | Haseldine, Norman |
| Bishop, E. S. | Dobson, Ray | Hattersley, Roy |
| Blackburn, F. | Doig, Peter | Henig, Stanley |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Driberg, Tom | Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) |
| Boardman, H. | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Hooley, Frank |
| Booth, Albert | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Horner, John |
| Boyden, James | Eadie, Alex | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Hunter, Adam |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) |
| Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | English, Michael | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Buchan, Norman | Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Faulds, Andrew | Judd, Frank |
| Cant, R. B. | Finch, Harold | Kelley, Richard |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lawson, George |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Foley, Maurice | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Chapman, Donald | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Lomas, Kenneth | Orbach, Maurice | Slater, Joseph |
| Loughlin, Charles | Orme, Stanley | Small, William |
| Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Oswald, Thomas | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| McCann, John | Padley, Walter | Steele,Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.) |
| MacColl, James | Page, Derek (Kings' Lynn) | Swain, Thomas |
| Macdonald, A. H. | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Symonds, J. B. |
| McKay, Mrs. Margaret | Pardoe, John | Tinn, James |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Park, Trevor | Urwin, T. W. |
| McNamara, J. Kevin | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Manuel, Archie | Pentland, Norman | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| Mapp, Charles | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Marquand, David | Probert, Arthur | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Mellish, Robert | Rankin, John | Wellbeloved, James |
| Millan, Bruce | Redhead, Edward | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire) | Rees, Merlyn | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Rhodes, Geoffrey | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Morris, John (Aberavon) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Moyle, Roland | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Murray, Albert | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Neal, Harold | Rose, Paul | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Newens, Stan | Rowland, Christopher (Meriden) | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. E. |
| Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) | Woof, Robert |
| Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) | Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. | Yates, Victor |
| Oakes, Gordon | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | |
| Ogden, Eric | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| O'Malley, Brian | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | Mr. Whitlock and Mr. Finch. |