§ Mr. SpeakerWith this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 2, in line 32, leave out from award' to end of line 41 and insert:
'having regard to all the circumstances of the case'.and Amendment No. 3, in line 34, leave out 'substantial'.
§ Mr. WylieAmendments Nos 1 and 3 go together in the sense that they seek to excise from the Clause references which, if they mean anything, tend to slant the emphasis against compensation.
Although they are small Amendments, Amendment No. 3 certainly is not insignificant. Amendment No. 1 I do not press very hard, but it would be tidier if the Minister took out these words. He has taken them out of Clause 2. I cannot see any reason why the words "(if any)" should be in this part of Clause 1. If no loss is established, the Lands Tribunal will not, of course, make an award of compensation.
Slightly more substantial than that are the words "substantial loss" in subsection (4)(i), which provides that the Lands Tribunal may make an award of
a sum to compensate for any substantial loss".We had a short discussion on this question in Committee. I suggested that "substantial" would be better deleted, because it could be established that a loss had been sustained which would not 890 fall within the definition of "substantial loss". It always imposes another obligation on the Tribunal to define and decide what constitutes "substantial loss".As some hon. Members will know, there is a fair amount of case law on the meaning of "substantial". In Falser v. Grinling, reported in 1948 Appeal cases, page 291, Viscount Simon used language which is worth quoting just to illustrate the significance of "substantial" in a statutory context of this kind. The learned Law Lord was dealing in that case with the words "substantial portion of the whole rent". It was a case arising out of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act. Viscount Simon's reference to "substantial portion" is to be found at page 316:
It is plain that the phrase requires a comparison with the whole rent and the whole rent means the entire contractual rent payable by the tenant in return for the occupation of the premises together with all other covenants of the landlord. 'Substantial' in this connection is not the same as 'not unsubstantial'—that is, just enough to avoid the deminitnis principle. One of the primary meanings is equivalent to considerable, solid or big.Although that language was used in connection with another Section in another Act, in the context of this provision the same observations apply. An applicant, to be entitled to compensation for "substantial" loss under the provisions of this paragraph, would have to establish loss which was far in excess of minimal. He would have to establish a loss which was considerable or big. On the equities of the situation, there is no justification for confining compensation to a loss which can be quantified on that scale. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and decide that "substantial" would be better out of the Clause.My main criticism of subsection (4), with which Amendment No. 2—which is perhaps one of the more important Amendments—is concerned—is the extent to which it can be operated, or is likely to be operated, in practice. I fully understand what the Government are getting at or are trying to achieve. They are laying down guidelines. They are saying that compensation must be related to conditions which applied at the time the condition was imposed.
The compensation that arises under this Clause is compensation to the superior where a restrictive condition is varied or 891 extinguished by the Lands Tribunal on an application by the feuar. It will impose an almost impossible task on a tribunal to try to assess compensation, particularly along the lines of the criteria laid down in subsection (4)(ii).
In Committee, we had a discussion on this matter. There were no Amendments down, because we were anxious to know exactly what the Minister had in mind. The hon. Gentleman was very frank in the views he expressed about the effect of those statutory obligations. On a number of occasions he made it clear that it would be very difficult for a superior to establish any loss at all in accordance with those criteria. He said:
…I am only frank in saying that I should not expect his case to be an easy one to make successfully…I have made clear that I do not think it will be easy to establish a case for compensation under Clause 1(4)(ii)".[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee; 12th March, 1970. c. 76–9.]6.45 p.m.Recognising the approach that the Government wish to make, and have made, to the question of compensation, I suggest that this goes too far. The Government are imposing guidelines which, in practice, are likely to result in the absence of any compensation at all—not because it would be inequitable to award compensation, but because the problem of discharging the onus of proof on the superior would be almost impossible of fulfilment.
I will illustrate this with a simple example. Let us suppose a feu contract was entered into in 1850 and that one of the conditions of the feu was that the property would be used only for residential purposes. A purchase price and a feu duty were fixed on that basis. One hundred and twenty years later the successor in title to the proprietor of the feu says, "I want to use this property for commercial use". Provided that the circumstances are appropriate and the criteria laid down in Clause 1(3) are satisfied, the tribunal will grant a waiver of the condition.
Then the question of compensation arises. It would be impossible in practice for the superior's successor in title to establish the difference in the purchase price which the absence of that condition would have resulted in in 1850 or 1870 892 or 1920, let alone the difference in the annual feu duty which would have been charged. The Lands Tribunal, in exercising its jurisdiction under this provision will be in a very difficult, if not in certain circumstances an altogether impossible, position.
The effect of the Amendment would be to give the tribunal a wide jurisdiction to take all the circumstances into account and to award a sum which it considered appropriate. In other words, instead of the criteria laid down in subsection (4)(i) and (ii), it would provide that the applicant would pay such sum as
…the Lands Tribunal may think it just to award having regard to all the circumstances of the case".I do not suggest that that is necessarily the complete answer. It may be too wide.
§ Mr. George Willis (Edinburgh, East)Hear, hear.
§ Mr. WylieI should have thought that it is certainly more practical from the point of view of the Lands Tribunal to have a remit of that kind than to try to assess
a sum to make up for any effect which the obligation produced, at the time when it was imposed, in reducing the consideration then paid or made payable for the interest in land affected by it".These are conditions which will be virtually impossible of fulfilment.If the Minister thinks that if our Amendment were effected the provision would then be too wide, I hope that he will undertake to look at the guidelines again and consider whether it is not possible to revise these provisions so as to write something into the Bill which the Lands Tribunal will be able to operate and something, above all, which interested parties will be able to establish. It is no use talking about compensation if we lay down conditions which, in effect, make it impossible for the interested party to establish loss in circumstances where some compensation ought to be awarded.
§ Mr. WillisI have been in the House a long time, but I never cease to wonder at the facility with which hon. Members opposite come to the aid and assistance of landowners, feu superiors and the rest. The Bill as it stands is plain enough, making clear that the feu superior will 893 receive compensation only if he suffers "substantial loss or disadvantage". That is reasonable. If the Amendments were accepted, subsection (4), so far as material, would read:
An order varying or discharging a land obligation under this section may direct the applicant to pay, to any person who in relation to that obligation is a benefited proprietor, such sum as the Lands Tribunal may think it just to award.…I never pretend to be a lawyer, but my interpretation of those words is that almost any feu superior would be entitled to compensation, no matter how small the loss, or even if there were no loss at all.The words which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) proposes to insert in subsection (4) would mean that a feu superior was automatically entitled to compensation, that he would have by reason of the burdens which may be removed under the Clause a cashable asset which, if he cared to give up the burdens, he could turn into ready money at any time.
I do not look upon the matter from that point of view. To be honest, I think that feu superiors have done very well over several centuries, never mind anything else. I do not see any of them studying the Department of Health and Social Security handbook to see what benefits they are entitled to, or going about suffering great hardship. They have enjoyed a comfortable income for a long time, and for no service whatever. Indeed, far from giving service, they have restricted the freedom of the people who occupy the land. We should have looked into this matter long ago. The idea that men should receive payment for restricting other people's liberties in respect of the land which they occupy should have been taken seriously long ago and brought to an end. As a first stage, the Bill is designed to make a start on that. I want to see the relief of these burdens carried through without all sorts of compensation to people who have enjoyed the right to draw moneys for no service at all for far too long.
In ordinary circumstances, I should have regard the words "(if any)" as superfluous. I like to cut out unnecessary words in a Clause. But in this case they are needed—this is the importance of the words "if any"—because they make 894 clear that there is no automatic right to compensation. This is a good warning note to strike right at the beginning. We say to anyone interested that there may be compensation but it is not automatic. Therefore, the words "if any" should be left in.
Amendment No. 2 would wipe out the conditions governing whether compensation is payable. For the reasons which I have already given, these words should be left in. They give guidance to the Lands Tribunal that compensation is to be awarded only in the circumstances set forth in subsection (4)(i) and (ii). The first is,
a sum to compensate for any substantial loss or disadvantage suffered by the proprietor".That is reasonable and fair enough, and one would agree; but it makes clear that that is the reason for which he may receive compensation. I find the second condition rather more difficult to understand, but I read it as simply an extension of the first.It seems to me, therefore, that we are here giving guidance to the Lands Tribunal, and also to the feu superior that he should not waste his own money or the time of the tribunal in bringing forward a case which does not fall within those two paragraphs. We are helping the feu superior to save his own money. I have no doubt that some feu superiors will try to obtain all they can—I have never known them not to, and I am sure that they will in this case—but least we are warning them, "It is no good wasting your money on legal fees, advocates and the rest of the boys unless the case you are fighting falls within these two conditions". We are acting fairly towards the Lands Tribunal. I have no doubt that these matters will soon be clarified and there will be some sort of codification, with decisions emerging which make fairly clear what the feu superior is entitled to and where he is entitled to it.
Amendment No. 3 would remove the word "substantial" from paragraph (i),
a sum to compensate for any substantial loss or disadvantage".It is a reasonable word to put in. If we say just "loss or disadvantage", that means that a feu superior can be compensated for quite trifling matters. I believe in the principle of compensation, but in this case, given the circumstances, many 895 people having suffered hardship because of the burdens imposed by feu superiors, I do not consider that the occupiers of land should be called upon to pay trifling sums to get rid of these burdens.On the whole, I regard the retention of the word "substantial" as wise. I have no doubt, as I say, that the Lands Tribunal will interpret these matters and make a number of decisions to clarify how they should be dealt with, but I am satisfied to see these words remain in the Bill so that it is understood that the feu superior will be compensated only for substantial loss or disadvantage, and he will not be compensated for all sorts of fiddling things which do not matter much. I regard that as good and reasonable, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposes it.
I have every confidence in the Government—in this respect at least—that they will reject these Amendments. I should be greatly disappointed if they did not. The Amendments seem to me to be a clever piece of legal chicanery to try to safeguard the feu superior to the last penny. They seemed to go further and make it almost automatic that he should receive some kind of award.
In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman never made it very clear whether he regarded these as cashable assets. It would have been interesting if he had told us tonight. I do not take that view. They are simply burdens that have been imposed on someone and are certainly not cashable assets. I hope that the Government will reject these Amendments and leave the Bill as it is.
The language is very clear. It gives guidance to the Lands Tribunal about the way in which the House thinks it should deal with the problem of compensation in respect of the discharge of land obligations. That seems to be a reasonable sort of thing, to give guidance. It will also assist in saving the time of the tribunal. If the feu superiors read it carefully and in accordance with the guidance, it should help them to save money.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in inviting my hon. Friend to resist these Amendments which are 896 characteristic of the opposition wt have seen throughout the stages of the Bill—characteristic of a willingness to resist all radicalism in the reform of the feudal law of Scotland.
It will be recalled that at an earlier stage it was suggested by some hon. Members opposite that the Bill did not go far enough in reforming the law. There has, nevertheless, been a consistent attempt to water down the provisions of the Bill in so far as they seek to remove the burdens of feudal obligations from Scottish land owners. If the Government were to accept the proposed Amendment to drop the words "(if any)" the clear implication would be that it would be incumbent upon the Lands Tribunal to award compensation in all cases. This would be undesirable, apart from the technical difficulties in certain cases of evaluating what sum would be equitable.
§ Mr. WylieSurely the hon. Gentleman must know as a lawyer that what he has said is not correct. Anything which falls within the de minimis rule would not constitute an award. All that I am asking is that the ordinary rule of law applies.
§ Mr. MaclennanThe ordinary rule of law may be as the hon. and learned Gentleman describes, but to a tribunal of this kind it should be made plain that no exceptional interpretation of the law is capable of being invoked. The words "(if any)" are a valuable protection which must be retained. They are not redundant. If the words were merely otiose there would be no need to excise them from the Bill.
The third Amendment, to leave out the word "substantial", can only lead to complication for the tribunal in administering the law. It would plainly be undesirable that it should be incumbent upon the tribunal to seek to evaluate minimal losses. The requirement that it should attempt to quantify any loss is one that would be incapable of execution in certain circumstances and for that reason I oppose the Amendment.
A more general point of principle arises from the consideration of these three Amendments. They all represent a bias towards the feudal superior which has been notable in the Opposition's handling of the Bill from the start. It 897 is an attitude which does not strike any note of sympathy either in this House or in Scotland, where we are delighted to see that this anachronistic law is being eroded and that there are prospects in the very near future, that it will be amended—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a discussion of the Bill. We are discussing three Amendments.
§ Mr. MaclennanThese three Amendments typify the attitude which has been prevalent throughout the whole of the first part of the Bill.
§ Mr. BuchanThis has been an interesting debate. In a curious way it has dealt with subject matter which, for one reason or another, was not fully explored in Committee. For that reason I welcome your acceptance, Mr. Speaker, of the Amendment. I am in agreement with what has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends because the point with which we are concerned is not just the tactical aspects of "(if any)" or the word "substantial", but the basic insertion of the words:
having regard to all the circumstances of the case.This, it is suggested, should be inserted in place of the two heads which we have laid down as guidelines on subsection (4).We did this with care, because basically we have a different approach and operate on different principles from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie). I was glad that this was raised, because it ties in with one or two points which arose on Second Reading, when I was curious about one or two phrases used in an earlier document. Clearly, by removing the guidelines here we would leave the way open, and maybe the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to do this, to the feudal obligation being seen as a cashable asset. We reject this concept.
We say that it is possible that damage or loss may occur and that if substantial loss or damage occurs then compensation is reasonable. We have made it clear that we do not see compensation being paid merely because an opportunity for profit was lost. That is the difference between us. We do not intend to give 898 compensation because of the loss of potential profit. We are prepared to pay compensation where loss or damage has been incurred and this is the basic cleavage between us. I am glad that this point has been made sharply, because I tried to raise it in Committee but was unable to do so. I cannot accept Amendment No. 2, the basic Amendment. It would cut across all that we are trying to do in this important Clause.
I want to turn to the rather more technical Amendments. I discussed this fully in Committee, where I said that it would not be sufficient to damage a rhododendron bush for it to be regarded as damage. We mean "substantial" in the sense of having substance, that is to say, that there would be an effect of some kind.
I take the technical point made by my hon. Friends about the inclusion of the words "(if any)" and "substantial", both of which alter the tone and bias of the Clause. "Substantial" has significance. It applies to more than any cheese-paring minimal loss that might occur and therefore, despite the authority of Lord Simon on this matter, I think that the word "substantial" should be retained.
We are perhaps being hard on the hon. and learned Gentleman in resisting the removal of the words " (if any) ". I am prepared to be generous in this respect and to accept the Amendment. I do not think that it has a great deal of significance. It would have such significance if it were associated with Amendment No. 3 concerning " substantial but by itself I am prepared to accept it.
I therefore suggest acceptance of Amendment No. 1 and rejection of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
§ Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)We are grateful that the hon. Gentleman has seen the light and is prepared to accept Amendment No. 1, despite the advice proferred to him by his right hon. and hon. Friends. They were distorting the situation and trying to over-simplify it, as they did in Committee. They are pretending that we appear to be one-sided in this matter, whereas we are seeking fair compensation for all concerned.
There is no issue about compensation. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking 899 as if there should not be any compensation for variation and discharge because the feu superiors had been burdening the proprietors for many years and did not deserve any compensation. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is not that.
The Government have accepted compensation. It is simply a matter of provisions in the Bill to give the Lands Tribunal guidelines to enable it to be as fair as possible to both sides in a transaction of this kind. We agree to leave this to the Lands Tribunal. Our concern is that the tribunal should be enabled to be as fair as possible to all concerned, and we think that the wording of the Bill could be improved to this end.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke scathingly of feu superiors. I do not like the term and I hope that it will be changed. We thought that it would be changed in the Bill, but that has not been done and we have to use the ancient word " superior " for the time being. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the Church of Scotland is the owner of a great many superiorities in Scotland; in fact, I believe it is the largest owner of superiorities in Scotland. I must declare an interest as a member of that Church and a contributor to its funds so I am indirectly concerned with the financial aspects of compensation.
There are other feu superiors who are institutions and the repositories of savings, including the small savings of many people throughout Scotland. It is therefore of concern to us that there should be fairness to both sides in these transactions. That is why we believe that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would also improve the Bill, as well as Amendment No. 1 which the Government have accepted.
7.15 p.m.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to make out that my hon. and learned Friend and I were biased in favour of feu superiors. As we both pay feuduty to superiors, we
§ are in the other category. We are feuars and pay feu duty, and I have done so for many years. There is no reason why either of us should be branded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as if we were in league with the superiors when we are ourselves in the other category.
§
Amendment No. 2 suggests the insertion of
having regard to all the circumstances of the case
My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that subsection (4)(ii) refers to the obligation—
at the time when it was imposed.
He said that the original land obligation could have arisen in 1850. If the Lands Tribunal has to concentrate on compensation in terms of 1850 when many of the items which may have to be taken into account, such as motor-cars and petrol stations, did not at that time exist, it will be extremely hard for the tribunal to relate the compensation to modern terms. In fact, subsection (4)(ii) appears to prevent it from doing that.
§ We think it much better that the Lands Tribunal should be left free to consider compensation in much wider terms. As my hon. and learned Friend said, if the Government thought the words in Amendment No. 2 were too wide, or if they thought they could improve on them, we should be happy if they introduced alternative words in another place.
§ The reply which the Minister has given, although it is satisfactory in accepting Amendment No. 1, is not satisfactory in relation to the other two Amendments, and I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide on Amendment No. 2.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 32. leave out from ' award ' to end of line 41 and insert—
'having regard to all the circumstances of the case '.—[Mr. Wylie.]
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 143.
901| Division No. 119.] | AYES | [7.19 p. m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Botsford, Brian | Braine, Bernard |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Berry, Hn. Anthony | Bullus, Sir Eric |
| Astor, John | Biffen, John | Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) |
| Baker, W. IC K. (Banff) | Body, Richard | Carlisle, Mark |
| Chichester-Clark, B. | Hunt, John | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Clegg, Walter | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Corfield, F. V. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Royle, Anthony |
| Costain, A. P. | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Kitson, Timothy | Sharpies, Richard |
| Dean, Paul | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Silvester, Frederick |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| Eden, Sir John | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Speed, Keith |
| Elliot,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.) | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) | Stainton, Keith |
| Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) | Maddan, Martin | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Fortescue, Tim | Maginnis, John E. | Temple, John M. |
| Fry, Peter | Marten, Neil | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Cilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Waddington, David |
| Gower, Raymond | Monro, Hector | Walters, Dennis |
| Grant, Anthony | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Ward, Christopher (Swindon) |
| Gurden, Harold | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Neave, Airey | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Harvie Anderson, Miss | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Worsley, Marcus |
| Hay, John | Onslow, Cranley | Wylie, N. R. |
| Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Younger, Hn. George |
| Hiley, Joseph | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) | |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Pounder, Rafton | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Holland, Philip | Pym, Francis | Mr. Reginald Eyre and |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Mr. Bernard Weatherill. |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Alldritt, Walter | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Murray, Albert |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Ogden, Eric |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Hamling, William | Orme, Stanley |
| Beaney, Alan | Harper, Joseph | Oswald, Thomas |
| Bence, Cyril | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Bishop, E. S. | Haseldine, Norman | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Blackburn, F. | Hooley, Frank | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Booth, Albert | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Pentland, Norman |
| Boston, Terence | Hoy, Rt. Hn. James | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) | Hynd, John | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Buchan, Norman | Janner, sir Barnett | Probert, Arthur |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Jeger, George (Goole) | Randall, Harry |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Rankin, John |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.) | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Richard, Ivor |
| Coleman, Donald | Kelley, Richard | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Leadbitter, Ted | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Roebuck, Roy |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Lee, John (Reading) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Sheldon, Robert |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) | Lomas, Kenneth | Sillars, J. |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Loughlin, Charles | Silverman, Julius |
| Delargy, H. J. | Lubbock, Eric | Slater, Joseph |
| Dell, Edmund | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dickens, James | McBride, Neil | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Dobson, Ray | MacColl, James | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Driberg, Tom | MacDermot, Niall | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Dunn, James A. | McElhone, Frank | Tinn, James |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | McGuire, Michael | Wallace, George |
| Ellis, John | Mackie, John | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| English, Michael | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | McNamara, J. Kevin | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Fernyhough, E. | MacPherson, Malcolm | Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch) |
| Finch, Harold | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Mallalieu.J.P.W.(Huddersfield.E.) | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Ford, Ben | Mapp, Charles | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Forrester, John | Marks, Kenneth | Woof, Robert |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard | |
| Gardner, Tony | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Garrett, W. E. | Millan, Bruce | Mr. Ernest Armstrong and |
| Golding, John | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Mr. James Hamilton. |