Skip to main content

Clause 2—(Power To Reduce Rateable Value Of Dwelling-Houses, Etc, For Purposes Of First Future Lists)

Volume 639: debated on Wednesday 3 May 1961

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:

(3) (a) The Minister shall so exercise his powers under this section that the domestic share of rateable value in England and Wales shall not exceed six-fifths of the present domestic share in England and Wales and that the domestic share of rateable value in any area shall not exceed five-fourths of the present domestic share in that area;
(b) in this subsection "area" means an administrative county or county borough; the expression "domestic share of rateable value" means a fraction, of which the numerator is the rateable value of all such hereditaments as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and the denominator is the sum of the rateable value of all hereditaments and of the values of property on which a contribution is paid in lieu of rates; and the expression "present domestic share" means the domestic share of rateable value in accordance with the valuation lists in force on the rate of the passing of this Act.
We have long pressed for the complete rating of industry as a whole and we welcome the Clause. Indeed, we regard it as overdue, but it raises questions as between industry on the one hand and the grouping of ratepayers, which includes shops and offices, on the other hand, and lastly the domestic ratepayer.

In replying to the debate on the last Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us the present position. I do not want to repeat what he said, but I must point out that the increase is estimated by the right hon. Gentleman not to increase industry's share of the burden. I agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this. There is bound to be when one is dealing with increases in values even over a period of six years between 1957 and 1963. It will be a rather shorter period, actually, since the lists will be prepared before them.

Subject to that, however, industry will not have to bear a larger share of the burden. Shops and offices, too, will be dealt with in the light of the rise in values since 1957; accordingly, from that point of view they will, no doubt, have some increase but not as much as those who, like domestic householders, will be dealt with on the basis of the difference between before the war and now. For shops it counterbalances that to some extent. The increase which they will have to bear is merely the removal of the 20 per cent. concession given to them a few years ago as against the removal of the 50 per cent. concession which industry has had for some time.

I think it is, therefore, fair to say that shops and offices will have to bear rather more of the total rateable value, but it is also fair to say that the people who will have to bear the brunt and full weight of the burden, the "severe jolt" as the right hon. Gentleman twice described it on Second Reading, will be the domestic householders. It is fair to add to that, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in the last debate, that domestic householders cannot deduct the rates they pay from business expenses as both industry and shops are entitled to do. There is no doubt, therefore, that on the basis of the law as it is at present, and including for the purposes of this discussion the Clause to which the Committee has just agreed, the person who will have incomparably the heaviest share of the burden will be the domestic householder.

No Government other than a Government composed of insensitive lunatics could possibly let that position remain, and even the present Government have found it necessary to provide in Clause 2 what the right hon. Gentleman calls a "cushion". I think that his picture is of the domestic householder being let down with a bump and he himself providing the "cushion" to make the fall rather easier.

We have had objections to this way of doing it, and one of our main objections is that the "cushion" is left entirely at the right hon. Gentleman's discretion. He is allowed to free domestic householders, either in the country as a whole or in parts of the country to different degrees, from whatever he thinks fit to relieve them in connection with the rate burden. He may relieve the domestic householder of 90 per cent. of it or of 10 or 20 per cent. of it. We do not know. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to do all that. The only indication that we have had about what the Minister proposes to do in the matter was given to us, curiously enough, not by the right hon. Gentleman but by the Parliamentary Secretary, who purported to quote what I think, in fact, his right hon. Friend had never said. Still, we can presume, I suppose, that they both got it out of the same notes, and, therefore, what is good enough for one is good enough for the other.

In column 508 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th November, 1960, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"My right hon. Friend said that the Government would not find it tolerable to allow an increase in the share of the rates falling on the householders because of the revaluation of the order of one-third. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1960; Vol. 631, c.508.]
That was promptly met by a comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who said that he was never quite sure what the phrase "of the order of" will mean when it comes to the point, a comment with which I agree. However, substantially we were told that the kind of increase which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was to allow up to one-third of the total as against the domestic householder.

What always happens in these cases happened today. We have seen a very good instance of it. Industry, which is entitled to set off its rate burden against its tax burden, complains about the incidence of rates, but when one comes to look at it one finds that rates are a far smaller share of the turnover or, indeed, the profits of industry than they are in relation to the small domestic householder. I suggest that from the point of view of the small domestic householder rates are a very hard tax indeed. They bear on him more heavily than they do on the large householder, and they bear on both of them more heavily than they do on industry or offices. The result is the curious one that when the rates come to be paid the offices of the Prudential or one of the large joint stock banks will get off better from this change, just as the business of I.C.I. or Unilever will get off better than the ordinary householder, and particularly the small householder.

What may be said against that is, "No doubt rates are from many points of view objectionable, but can you suggest a better alternative?" I will not go into that at any length on this Amendment, but it is clear that that comment may be made. I think that it is sufficient if on this Amendment I remind the Committee that the Opposition divided on Second Reading on a reasoned Amendment which mentioned the inequitable burden on domestic ratepayers—which is exactly what I have been talking about—and declined to proceed further until a full inquiry had been made into the financial relationship between central and local government under modern conditions.

On this Amendment I cannot develop that, but I can put it more shortly. If the inevitable result of the Government's proposal is that the domestic householder has to bear a jolt of this character subject only to a "cushion" the softness and the efficiency of which depend entirely on the judgment of the Minister who is responsible for the Rent Act, then the rating change is not particularly good. I must rub this in a little further yet. What is happening to the domestic householder is partly a matter of the form that the relief takes in this Bill and partly a matter of what has been going on in the way of house values and the rates upon which these rating values are based. Of course, one can take only—as the right hon. Gentleman has told us again and again, usually when asking for a postponement of the valuation lists—the rents of uncontrolled and, in that sense, free houses. If anybody looks round London today, they will find that there has been, exactly as one would expect, a very sharp rise indeed in rents, purchase prices and, therefore, the prospective rateable values of the houses. The reason is that, to start with, the whole market has been allowed to slip upwards partly because of the removal of rent control and partly because of the provisions about compensation in full to local authorities—I have no objection to that—not being accompanied by any provision for ensuring that local authorities get betterment.

8.30 p.m.

The result is that under this Government land and, with it, houses have gone up and up in value, particularly in the Metropolis and in the other large towns. That has been added to by a number of other factors all connected with Government policy. One, for instance, is that instead of providing enough houses through council building to make good the real shortage that there is in these large towns, the Government have succeeded in roughly halving the rate of building council houses in the last five or six years and have encouraged the building of houses for sale and, to a very limited extent, indeed, for letting by private enterprise.

Since the rents so obtained depend very largely on the rates of interest current at the time, both the housing policy of the Government and the financial policy of higher rates of interest have all played their part in pushing up the value of houses. All this will come back on the domestic ratepayer when he is called upon to bear the jolt of the change between pre-war and present-day conditions.

It is, of course, in recognition of that being a certainty, although the amount of it may not be a certainty, that the Government have felt bound to introduce Clause 2. But I repeat that the Government have left it to the Minister who is personally responsible as a Minister for a good many of these acts of policy. He forms part of the Government which bears a very grave responsibility for the whole picture, as it now affects the domestic ratepayer. They have, in short, queered the pitch for him concerning rating assessments.

In these circumstances, we on this side of the Committee are not prepared to leave this matter entirely to the arbitrary descretion—for it is uncontrolled except by an affirmative Resolution being required—of the right hon. Gentleman. I say "arbitrary" because we can be realists about affirmative Resolutions. They are, no doubt, a very good way of making clear what the Government propose, but the Government would resign if they were defeated on an affirmative Resolution. The Whips are on and there is no Amendment possible. In fact and in practice, whatever the constitutional theory may be, the extent and efficacy of it will depend entirely on the right hon. Gentleman's judgment of the position.

The object of the Amendment is to give the domestic ratepayers a limit, and the limit must be given by limiting their share of the total rate burden. I say that because if we were merely engaged in limiting the amount, a county borough, for instance, could double the rateable value over a given area, and if it did not want any more money for public purposes it could then halve the poundage, and the result would be the same.

When we come to consider shares this is another matter. If we look at the way the shares have worked we see yet another reason why the domestic ratepayer needs protection. Let us compare two areas, one consisting almost entirely of domestic premises, a large residential town which probably returns a Tory Member, the other a town where many people are living because their work is there and where also there is a considerable number of factories, offices and the like.

In the former town the Bill will not make much difference. The domestic ratepayer's share has always been so large, because there are no factories and few shops, that it makes little odds. The same applies in the residential suburbs. In the other place the full effect of the Bill will be that, though industry will bear a little more and though, no doubt, shops and offices will have some increase, the domestic ratepayer will take the really severe jolt, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it.

In the circumstances, it is perfectly clear that those who are concerned with our industrial constituencies are particularly anxious to see that the domestic ratepayer there is not hard hit by the change while the domestic ratepayer in Bournemouth or some other happy and wealthy centre gets off with little or no increase. The operation of the Bill in that respect will be unfair. Again, it is all a matter of the right hon. Gentleman's discretion. He may make distinctions between one area and another. He is not bound to make any, and he is not restricted in the distinctions he makes.

In the circumstances, we say that to increase the domestic householder's share by one-fifth is ample at the moment. We do not say that that should be done—quite the opposite—but we say that that is the limit of what should be done. The domestic ratepayer ought not to be obliged to carry any greater share of the burden than that. We say, too, that as regard particular areas where there may have to be some provision and a larger increase might otherwise be involved, there ought not to be more than a one-quarter increase.

What I have just said is the purport of paragraph (a) of the new subsection which we desire to insert, that is to say, that the domestic share of rateable value in the country as a whole is not to exceed six-fifths of the present domestic share, and that the domestic share in any area is not to exceed five-fourths.

The following paragraph merely defines the words used. It defines particularly the
"domestice share of rateable value"
and it defines it in the form of a fraction. It looks fiercer than it is. I think we all know what is intended by the expression "domestic share of rate burden". On 29th November, in a Written Answer, the right hon. Gentleman set out in column 29 and 30 of the OFFICIAL REPORT the most recent figures showing how rateable value is divided. One finds that dwellings will account for just about 47½ per cent. of the amount expected to be receive in rates in the year 1960–61. Adding one-fifth to that, householders would then carry rather more than half the total burden.

Rates are a bad tax, for the reasons I have indicated. They are a regressive tax. They come down on the small householder, the small person of fixed income of whom we hear sometimes from hon. Members opposite. Those are the people who will suffer. In view of what has happened during recent years about housing, house values and land values, is it right in a Bill of this kind to leave the protection of the domestic householder entirely to Ministerial discretion? If that is all that the Government can do, then there must be something wrong either, as I believe, with the whole system—I think that it needs examining—or with the steps which are being taken.

The Minister goes round the country saying that it is not he who has made things difficult for the domestic ratepayer. He is St. George in shining armour come to rescue him from the dragon of existing legislation. Technically, he is perfectly right. Practically, he is talking complete nonsense, if he will excuse my saying so, because no Government in their senses could possibly have left the present position without trying to give some protection to the domestic householder. All that we are saying is that that protection, up to the amounts that we suggest, should be certain and that, if a discretion is the only way of dealing with the matter, then it must be exercised in such a way that it will afford some real assistance.

I ask hon. Members to remember one thing. Their constituents, like mine, probably come to see them from time to time to grumble about a rating assessment or the rates which they are paying. How many of those constituents really know that they are being assessed on a hypothetical 1939 value? I occasionally ask them. My experience is that they never know. The result of the Bill will be that the jolt to them will be exceptionally severe. I agree that there is a certain logical consistency in that.

People will say, "It is the council which has done it again". In Measure after Measure the right hon. Gentleman has so managed things—whether on purpose or by happy accident I cannot say—that the councils are blamed for Government policy. It is said that there are not enough council houses and that the rents are too high. But what about the rate of interest which the councils have to pay? The Government will be responsible if they do not ensure in this Measure that the domestic householder gets at least a modicum of protection.

The local councils, not the Government, will be blamed, particularly in areas where the severe jolt will be felt most acutely, namely, in industrial areas which have Labour-controlled councils and which are represented by my hon. Friends. It is not right that that should be so. If this is all that the Government can do, in spite of all the criticisms that I have made, then they should at least ensure that the protection is not purely discretionary but that there is, as we propose, a reasonable minimum of security.

The Minister is asking for a very wide discretion. While I have no doubt that it is his intention and desire to exercise this discretion wisely and properly, I think that it is our duty to examine it with some care.

The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have said on more than one occasion that the Government intend that the principle of current values shall underlie the rating system in future. I have some doubt as to whether it will work out in that way. We have had various calculations about what the effect would be on domestic householders if there were no derating. I believe that it has been suggested that the liability of the domestic ratepayer would be trebled. For instance, if a local authority's expenditure remained unchanged, the sum of £25 which a ratepayer was paying would rise to £75, which is a very substantial increase.

8.45 p.m.

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, the Minister is asking for power to make regulations at his discretion for a period of five years in order to defer the jolt—and it will obviously be a substantial and serious jolt for the domestic ratepayer.

I understand that it is the intention of the Government to limit this increased burden falling upon the domestic householder to 30 per cent. or so. In that event, it seems to follow that at the end of the five-year period the domestic householder is liable to be faced with a substantial increase. As we approach the end of the five-year period, there will be increasing pressure for a further similar Order. We shall be told that the precedent has been established—at least one cannot deny that a precedent is being established—by the Clause giving the Minister power to deal with the particular position of the domestic householder by means of an Order.

I recognise that anybody criticising this is liable to be asked what one would do. I have proposed that there should be a pilot survey and valuation based upon site value rating in order to compare it with the existing method of arriving at liability to rates. Obviously, it would be out of order to pursue that. I merely say in passing that if that comparison were made, one interesting conclusion that would follow is that the average rate liability of domestic householders would be considerably less. Figures from other countries bear that out.

That would be the case without any derating regulation. It would be a permanent solution, and that is one of the merits. However, I am obviously not able to pursue that. I merely say that I am in favour of some radical reform of a long-term nature which would overcome the necessity or the case for dealing with this kind of problem by means of Orders and regulations. In the meantime, however, the House of Commons is faced with this dilemma. The Minister obviously does not wish to have his hands tied. I imagine that that is what he will say. On the other hand, the House of Commons has a duty to retain the right to decide so far as possible within its own hands. We have a duty to lay down a maximum to enable the House to retain that degree of control.

I believe that when the application of the principle of current values is fully understood there will be a great outcry. It may be that this outcry will be postponed for the period of five years. That rather depends upon the extent of the derating, but it is only postponing the evil day. I envisage a long vista of Orders and regulations following from the precedent that is now being set.

I recognise that we are in a difficulty. I do not want to damn the Amendment with faint praise. I consider it the best solution that could be put forward. I advocate it, however, primarily because it is a way of retaining within the hands of the House of Commons some control over the extent of the derating that is made necessary by Government legislation. For those reasons, I feel bound to support the Amendment.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs
(Mr. Henry Brooke)

In all our previous proceedings on this Bill the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has never spoken of me so generously as to liken me to St. George. I am grateful, and I shall refrain from making any further identification of himself. Even so, I recognise that he is in line with the Government in wishing that any additional burden which may fall on householders by the revaluation in 1963 shall not be of so heavy a character as to be unbearable. We are at one on that. The only question is, what is the right method by which to proceed?

The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, very fairly, that this is a difficult matter. He likes the general idea of the Amendment, I fancy, but at the same time he recognises that it is not an ideal way of proceeding and that it would in itself cause certain difficulties.

I said on behalf of the Government at an earlier stage of the Bill that the Government would regard an overall 33 per cent. increase in the share to be borne by the householder of the total rate burden as unacceptable. I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman in this Amendment has kept his figures somewhat below that.

If the Amendment were accepted certain consequences would flow. It would cut across a suggestion which I made, and which I thought received a good deal of support and good will in the Standing Committee, that we should try to avoid having a great many different percentages of derating in the different counties and county boroughs. This Amendment provides, if I understand it aright, that in the case of no county or county borough shall the domestic share rise by more than 25 per cent.

If the valuation figures, when we see them in draft, indicate a wide variety of increases in the domestic share in the many different counties and county boroughs, it may be necessary to invoke the Order-making power so as to impose a wide variety of different percentages of derating on to the different counties and county boroughs in order to bring them all within the 25 per cent. I think I should carry most hon. Members with me if I were to hope that it may not be necessary to fix different percentages of derating for different areas. The less we find that that is necessary the better. This Amendment, though, is really rigid, and it would mean that even if it were going to be one tiny fraction over a 25 per cent. increase in any county or county borough then a special further percentage of derating would be necessary.

That is not the whole story.

These percentages in both cases are maxima. They are not fixed amounts. I should have thought that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted a wide discrepancy he could still have got it by treating them as maxima.

I thought, from other points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering that he wanted to ensure as equitable an arrangement as possible between the domestic ratepayers in different areas of the country. I was simply making the point that to avoid exceeding that 25 per cent. limit for any area, even by a tiny fraction, might result in our having to vary the percentage of derating in different cases.

The derating Order will need to be made in the early months of 1962. It would be impossible to insert all the figures in the lists unless the Order were submitted to Parliament early in the year, and approved by the House, and then they would be available to be inserted in the lists.

That means that we have to take these decisions twelve months ahead on figures which give general guidance, but which cannot be definitive and final. Yet, if this Amendment were carried, the Government, in the use of their Order-making power, would be bound by Statute. We have to make absolutely certain that in no case would the effect of the Order, twelve months subsequently, be to leave the increase in the share more than 20 per cent. over the country as a whole, or more than 25 per cent. in any particular area. That being so, it would be necessary to leave a wide margin of safety, because I do not know what we should do if it were discovered, in April of 1963, that there had been a breach of the Statute by an Order made twelve months earlier.

I make that point because, whereas it might seem to the Committee that these percentage increases—20per cent. in one case and 25 per cent. in another—are reasonable figures, in drafting an Order and submitting it to Parliament the Government would obviously have to provide that wide margin of safety, seeing that they were acting on preliminary and provisional figures, in order to be absolutely certain that when the valuations were complete and the new system came into force in 1963, there would be no breach of the Statute.

I do not necessarily say that all these things make it impossible, but they make it considerably more complicated, and they are almost certain to lead to a greater number of different percentages of derating in different parts of the country, just when most people would say that if we can keep to one percentage of derating everywhere—or, perhaps, one, two or three different percentages at the most—that would be best.

These are not just technical objections but have particular weight when it is remembered that the decision by the Minister to lay an Order, and the decision of the House to approve it or otherwise, has to be taken long before the definite figures are available. In these circumstances, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. This is a variant of other Amendments which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering moved persuasively in the Standing Committee.

It may be the best one. That is not for me to judge. For the reasons I have given, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment because I do not think that it would be in the general interest of the country for the Government to write anything so rigid as this into the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but I hear that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) compared the Minister with St. George. We all remember that the dragon was killed.

I think that is obvious. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that ordinary householders would pay over 50 per cent. of the amount expected to be received from rates in 1960–61 and very large numbers of people, particularly those on fixed income, would suffer. Hon. Members opposite claim that those are the people whom they want to protect. The Minister has said that there will be a high percentage increase in some areas and a low percentage increase in others, but he would like to fix a percentage of between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. over the country as a whole.

Why has the Minister at this juncture provided for these percentages? Why did he not go the full distance in the first place? Is he now saying that because of the block grant he will make it only 25 per cent. for each year but will make the figure cumulative and will get all his money back in the end? These provisions are unjust to the ordinary householder who contributes by far the larger share. It would be unfair to blame the local authorities for something which the Minister is imposing upon them at a time when he is not prepared to shoulder his responsibilities in this respect.

The Committee may be anxious to reach a decision on the Amendment before long, but it will not take me long to demonstrate that the reasons given by the Minister for rejecting it carry no conviction. We all agree that it is necessary to have some power for the temporary derating of domestic properties, otherwise when the important date comes the domestic ratepayer will have a nasty shock. Secondly, we also all agree that the amount of that derating must in equity vary from area to area. Broadly speaking, if an area is almost 100 per cent. domestic properties it would not suffer so much, but in an area where there is a considerable amount of industrial property the domestic ratepayer would suffer a great deal. Consequently, the power of temporary derating ought to be exercised in different degrees from one area to another.

Let us consider why that is important. In his argument against the Amendment the Minister looked at it far too much from the point of view of an administrator and far too little from the point of view of the person who has to pay the rates. What matters to the domestic ratepayer is this question: "For every £1 I pay now, how much shall I have to pay when the effect of this legislation is felt?" What equity requires is that if in one area the domestic ratepayer is paying 25s. for every 20s. he used to pay, it should not be the case that in other areas he is having to pay very much more than 25s. for every 20s. he used to pay. We want the relation between the future domestic share, to use the language of the Amendment, and the present domestic share to be as alike as possible throughout the country and to have as little variation from one area to another as possible.

The Minister rightly pointed out that if we want that result we should have to have a fairly wide and frequent variation in the percentage of derating. From his point of view as an administrator he wants as few different percentages of derating as possible because that is what is convenient for the administration of the Bill. But we pass Bills for the benefit not of administrators but of the general public, and what matters to the general public is that the ratepayers in one area shall not be subjected to a very much greater shook than the ratepayers in another area.

That is the merit of the Amendment. Although it might require the Minister to have a greater number of percentages of derating than he would otherwise have, it will give a lesser difference in the effect on the ratepayers between one area and another. The Minister nods his head in agreement. I hope that we may hear from him in a different sense before the end of the discussion from the sense in which he has argued previously. There is nothing in his argument about trying to have as few different percentages of derating as possible. That looks at the position from the bureaucratic rather than from the public-spirited point of view.

His other argument may seem at first sight to have a little more substance. He said that he has to make these orders about 12 months before the events to which they relate, and that the calculation must therefore be made and a decision taken as to the percentages which are to be put in without certainty as to how they will work out. He said that in order to comply with the Amendment he would have to leave himself a considerable margin. If it were true that it is inevitable that the Minister must make orders 12 months before the effect is known, I can see that that would be a difficulty for him, but why is he in that position? It is because in Committee he obstinately resisted an Amendment which would have given him power by subsequent orders to vary or revoke orders made under the Clause.

If in the first place he made an order which he thought would be right and would comply with the Amendment, and then a little nearer the date found that the appropriate percentage was such that his order would not comply with the terms of the Amendment, he could solve the problem quite easily by making another order amending that which he had previously made. Nobody would be subjected to uncertainty because, looking at the Amendment, which would then be part of the Bill, everyone would know what was the ultimate result for the domestic ratepayer which would be achieved. All that the Minister would have to vary would be the necessary mechanism in derating percentages in order to effect that result. The Minister could do that quite easily if he had power to vary or revoke orders made under the Clause by subsequent orders, and the fact that he has no such power is entirely his on fault, because we asked him in Committee to give himself that power and he would not do so. Even yet, it is not too late. There are further opportunities to amend this Bill. Differing opinions are held as to the value of another place, but, at least, it can be used as a place where Amendments can be made when Ministers see the light at the eleventh hour.

Finally, we on this bench are very glad of support by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), and it seems to me that the Minister quite

Division No. 156.]


[9.13 p.m.

Abse, LeoDavies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)Gooch, E. G.
Ainsley, WilliamDavies, S. O. (Merthyr)Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)Deer, GeorgeGourlay, Harry
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)de Freitas, GeoffreyGrey, Charles
Awbery, StanDelargy, HughGriffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Bacon, Miss AlicaDempsey, JamesGriffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)Diamond, JohnGrimond, J.
Benson, Sir GeorgeDodds, NormanGunter, Ray
Blyton, WilliamDonnelly, DesmondHale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Boardman, H.Driberg, TomHamilton, William (West Fife)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)Ede, Rt. Hon. C.Hannan, William
Bowen, Roderio (Cardigan)Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)Hart, Mrs. Judith
Bowles, FrankEdwards, Robert (Bilston)Hayman, F. H.
Boyden, JamesEdwards, Walter (Stepney)Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Brockway, A. FennerEvans, AlbertHerbison, Miss Margaret
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Finch, HaroldHill, J. (Midlothian)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)Fletcher, EricHilton, A. V.
Castle, Mrs. BarbaraFoot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)Holman, Percy
Collick, PercyForman, J. C.Holt, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. FredaFraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Houghton, Douglas
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. HughHowell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Crossman, R. H. S.George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)Hoy, James H.
Cullen, Mrs. AliceGinsburg, DavidHughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

failed to grasp the purport of his remarks. The Minister said that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West did not regard the Amendment as ideal, and went on to say that the hon. Member did not regard it as the best way of doing it, but I do not think that is quite right. The reason why the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West did not regard this Amendment as ideal was that he thought the whole problem ought to be tackled in a more drastic manner, and that we cannot do at this stage of the Bill, but, within the ambit of the Bill as it now is, I do not think the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was suggesting that the results which we want to achieve could be achieved in any better way than my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.

Therefore, with the support of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and fortified with the support of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West and his hon. Friends, we shall feel it necessary to test the opinion of the Committee, unless, as I hope, from the facial significations of the Minister earlier, he intends to change his mind. I see that the hopes of repentance that appeared earlier are now dwindling, and, if that is so, after any other hon. Members who wish to address the Committee on this point have done so, we shall feel it necessary to record our judgment on the Minister's obstinacy on this matter.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 164, Noes 224.

Hunter, A. E.Moyle, ArthurStewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)Neal, HaroldStones, William
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)Swingler, Stephen
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)Oliver, G. H.Sylvester, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)Owen, WillSymonds, J. B.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)Parker, JohnTaylor, John (West Lothian)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)Peart, FrederickThomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)Pentland, NormanThompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Kelley, RichardPrentice, R. E.Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Kenyon, CliffordPrice, J. T. (Westhoughton)Timmons, John
Lawson, GeorgeProbert, ArthurTomney, Frank
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)Proctor, W. T.Wade, Donald
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)Pursey, Cmdr. HarryWarbey, William
Lipton, MarcusRandall, HarryWeitzman, David
Logan, DavidRedhead, E. C.Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Loughlin, CharlesRoberts, Albert (Normanton)White, Mrs. Eirene
Mabon, Dr. J. DicksonRoberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)Willey, Frederick
MacColl, JamesRobertson, J. (Paisley)Williams, D. J. (Neath)
McKay, John (Wallsend)Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)
Mackie, JohnRogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
McLeavy, FrankRoss, WilliamWilliams, W. R. (Openshaw)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Short, EdwardWillis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Manuel, A. C.Silverman, Julius (Aston)Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mapp, CharlesSkeffington, ArthurWoodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mason, RoySlater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)Woof, Robert
Mendelson, J. J.Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Millan, BruceSmall, WilliamZilllacus, K.
Mitchison, G. R.Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Monslow, WalterSnow, JulianTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Morris, JohnSoskice, Rt. Hon. Sir FrankMr. Charles A. Howell and
Mort, D. L.Spriggs, LeslieMr. McCann.


Agnew, Sir PeterDigby, Simon WingfieldHutchison, Michael Clark
Aitken, W. T.Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.Iremonger, T. L.
Allason, JamesDoughty, CharlesJackson, John
Arbuthnot, JohnDuncan, Sir JamesJames, David
Atkins, HumphreyEden, JohnJennings, J. C.
Balniel, LordElliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Barber, AnthonyElliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Barlow, Sir JohnEmmet, Hon. Mrs. EvelynJohnson Smith, Geoffrey
Barter, JohnErrington, Sir EricJones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)Farey-Jones, F. W.Joseph, Sir Keith
Beamish, Col. Sir TuftonFell, AnthonyKerans, Cdr. J. S.
Berkeley, HumphryFinlay, GraemeKerby, Capt. Henry
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)Fisher, NigelKirk, Peter
Bingham, R. M.Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)Kitson, Timothy
Birch, Rt. Hon. NigelGibson-Watt, DavidLeavey, J. A.
Bishop, F. P.Glover, Sir DouglasLeburn, Gilmour
Bossom, CliveGlyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bourne-Arton, A.Goodhart, PhilipLilley, F. J. P.
Box, DonaldGough, FrederickLindsay, Martin
Boyle, Sir EdwardGower, RaymondLinstead, Sir Hugh
Braine, BernardGrant, Rt. Hon. WilliamLitchfield, Capt. John
Brewis, JohnGreen, AlanLongden, Gilbert
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir WalterGresham Cooke, R.Loveys, Walter H.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. HenryGrosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Browne, Percy (Torrington)Hall, John (Wycombe)McAdden, Stephen
Bullard, DenysHamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Burden, F. A.Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)Harris, Reader (Heston)McMaster, Stanley R.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)Harrison, Brian (Maldon)Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)Harvie Anderson, MissMaddan, Martin
Cary, Sir RobertHeald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelMaltland, Sir John
Channon, H. P. G.Henderson, John (Cathcart)Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Chataway, ChristopherHenderson-Stewart, Sir JamesMarkham, Major Sir Frank
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)Hendry, ForbesMarlowe, Anthony
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)Hiley, JosephMarples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Cleaver, LeonardHill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)Marshall, Douglas
Cooper, A. E.Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.Hirst, GeoffreyMatthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Costain, A. P.Hobson, JohnMawby, Ray
Coulson, J. M.Hooking, Philip N.Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Courtney, Cdr. AnthonyHolland, PhilipMaydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Craddock, Sir BeresfordHollingworth, JohnMills, Stratton
Critchley, JulianHornby, R. P.Montgomery, Fergus
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. PatriciaMore, Jasper (Ludlow)
Crowder, F. PHoward, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)Morrison, John
Cunningham, KnoxHughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral JohnMott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Curran, CharlesHughes-Young, MichaelNabarro, Gerald
Deedes, W. F.Hulbert, Sir NormanNicholson, Sir Godfrey
de Ferranti, BasilHurd, Sir AnthonyNoble, Michael

Nugent, Sir RichardRussell, RonaldTurton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Oakshott, Sir HendrieScott-Hopkins, JamesTweedsmuir, Lady
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Seymour, Leslievan Straubenzee, W. R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)Sharples, RichardVane, W. M. F.
Page, John (Harrow, West)Shaw, M.Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)Skeet, T. H. H.Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)Smithers, PeterWalder, David
Peel, JohnSmyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)Walker, Peter
Percival, IanSpearman, Sir AlexanderWard, Dame Irene
Peyton, JohnSpeir, RupertWatts, James
Pickthorn, Sir KennethStevens, GeoffreyWells, John (Maidstone)
Pike, Miss MervynSteward, Harold (Stockport, S.)Whitelaw, William
Pilkington, Sir RichardStoddart-Scott, Col. Sir MalcolmWilliams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Pott, PercivallStudholme, Sir HenryWills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Prior, J. M. L.Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir OthoSumner, Donald (Orpington)Wise, A. R.
Pym, FrancisTalbot, John E.Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)Woodhouse, C. M.
Ramsden, JamesTaylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)Woodnutt, Mark
Rawlinson, PeterTeeling, WilliamWoollam, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. MartinThatcher, Mrs. MargaretWorsley, Marcus
Rees, HughThomas, Leslie (Canterbury)Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Renton, DavidThomas, Peter (Conway)
Ridsdale, JulianThompson, Kenneth (Walton)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Roots, WilliamThornton-Kemsley, Sir ColinColonel J. H. Harrison and
Ropner, Col. Sir LeonardTiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.