Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
(1) As from the appointed day the increased rates of retirement pensions set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall apply to existing beneficiaries as they apply to persons who have satisfied the relevant contribution conditions under the National Insurance Act, 1946, and the power to make regulations under subsection (3) of section sixty-five of that Act shall be exercised accordingly.
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am sorry that the Motion is couched in very cold legal terms, but I confess that I have found difficulty in finding a suitable procedural vehicle which would enable me to bring to the notice of the Minister and the Commitee a category of retirement pensioners who seem to be getting a raw deal in the context of the present conditions in the National Insurance Scheme. I refer to those pensioners who are drawing modified pensions, that is, those people who receive less than their full pension rates because of their late entry into the scheme due in this case to the fact that they were in excepted occupation.
Quite a large number of these people were employed in the Civil Service, and I remember well that when I was in the Post Office a number of post office people, minor manipulative grades in particular, were among those people. Their pensions were not very high and, therefore, the Government decided to give them opportunities to become what they termed voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Scheme.
The first opportunity to become a contributor under the scheme was given in 1926 and a further opportunity was given in 1930. As far as my recollection goes, the only benefits to which these people were entitled under the voluntary contributors scheme were pension benefits. I am subject to correction, but I think they were not beneficiaries in any other way except under a retirement pension scheme when they reached the requisite age. Under the voluntary contributors' scheme they were called upon to pay the employers' contribution as well as their own, for which they received no extra credit, but the pension was modified according to the age at which they entered the scheme.
That means that these men and women could have been paying as voluntary contributors for fifteen years and, in some cases, for as long as eighteen years. At the end, the contributor and his wife would receive a joint pension which was lower than the joint pension given to ordinary retiring pensioners under the ordinary scheme. I hope that I make myself clear to the Committee, but perhaps I shall make myself clearer if I quote two examples. The first example is one which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gave me. He is not here and, therefore, is not in a position to give the example himself.
A postman retired in 1945 at the age of 65, with twenty-five years' established service. He became a voluntary contributor under the option given to him in 1930. On his retirement he and his wife received 53s. 6d. instead of the standard 65s. I understand from the statement made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, on Second Reading, that these people will be entitled to proportionate increases under the Bill. I am assuming that that is correct.
I now come to the second example, which concerns a postman. This is a case of which I have personal knowledge. The postman was a voluntary contributor for eighteen years. The joint pension that he and his wife received was 60s. instead of the standard 65s. I have no reason to doubt this example, because I was a voluntary contributor myself, but I have forgotten most of the conditions. One just pays these things and hopes for the best at the end. This man assures me that he paid the full 52 weekly contributions for eighteen years right up to his sixty-fifth birthday, in 1948. He paid his own contribution and the employer's contribution, and at the end of it all he was not entitled to the standard rate of retirement pension.
These men write to us and say, quite rightly, that under the present National Insurance Scheme there are thousands of persons with no more than four years' insurance contributions prior to 1948 who will he getting full benefit. They also point out that as many as 450,000 persons, and more, will come into full pension next July after paying ten years' insurance contributions. The men and women who write to us have paid dual contributions, some for as long as eighteen years, some for fifteen years—and, I dare say, some for less—and they cannot see any reason at all why they should be treated more unjustly, or less reasonably, than those other categories who came in five years ago and become entitled to full benefit, and those who, after ten years, will, in July, also become entitled to full benefit. They feel that here there is a real injustice, that they have had a raw deal, and that, at some time or another, someone must try to remedy this situation.
I do not ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to commit himself tonight. I do not suppose for a moment that he would be able at once to decide the exact lines that should be taken, but this new Clause is the only way in which I could bring the matter to the notice of the Minister and of the Committee. I should like the hon. Gentleman, however, to ask his right hon. Friend to look at this again—for this reason. No more people will enter this category under the 1948 scheme, and no one reaching pension age after 1953 was, in fact, subject to the modified pension rule. I assume, therefore, that the relative cost would be negligible and, after a few years, would not be a recurring charge.
As I have said, I do not expect the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer in the affirmative tonight, but I should like him, with his right hon. Friend, to consider the arguments I have put forward, the sense of injustice felt by these people, and the fact that on this side we share the view that they have had a raw deal. I would add that it will not suit my convenience, nor do I think that it will suit the convenience of the Committee, if the hon. Gentleman or anyone else gets up and says that we did not do something in 1951.
All this talk of obsolescence leaves me stone cold. To these people, nothing that affects them is obsolescent, whether or not it may be obsolescent in an academic sense. To them, it means the difference between getting about 65s., and the 80s. that they should be getting under this Bill. I appeal to the Ministry to give serious consideration to this question. If I cannot have an assurance of something affirmative now, I hope that, possibly in another place, the Government will move an Amendment to make this provision possible.
I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) need not offer an apology to the Committee for not being able to put over his case with clarity and with persuasiveness. I think that he did it very well indeed, if I may say so, and as there seems little for me to add, perhaps I may be allowed to underline one or two points.
My hon. Friend demonstated that the Bill gives to certain categories of people only a proportionate increase. That is the complaint of those receiving what is known as the modified pension. My hon. Friend and I believe that the time has come when we should look very carefully at the modified pension and, when we are considering these increases, whether the time has not come to make a full increase to those modified pensioners.
Under the earlier contributory pension Acts, certain trades, occupations and professions were excepted. Those in them were not allowed to come into the compulsory insurance scheme. That was no fault of their own, but because they happened to be in a particular occupation or profession. In that category were quite a large number of civil servants, many of them in the manipulative grades. They were prevented from coming into the compulsory contributory National Insurance Scheme.
As time went on they began to appreciate the benefits of the pension scheme and wanted to come in, and there began the pressure to see whether it was not possible to introduce legislation whereby they could become voluntary contributors. In due course, that legislation came before this House and, as a result, quite a number of those in excepted occupations came in voluntarily and were prepared to pay not only their own contribution, but the employer's contribution as well. That was a fairly large contribution.
When the 1948 Act came in, the other Acts were absorbed but, as I understand, the legislation did not make it possible for these voluntary contributors to have benefit in full. They were to have only a proportionate benefit. This has gone on now for some time, and in view of the rising cost of living it is bearing very heavily on the modified pensioners, and in correspondence I have had quite recently these people have pointed out the injustice.
First, they say that if an individual was in the compulsory scheme five years before the 1948 Act came in he immediately became entitled to full pension, whereas some of these modified pensioners might well have been making a double payment for about fifteen or eighteen years. I understand that under the 1948 Act some of the other contributors are able to get a full pension after being five years in the scheme.
We all know, of course, that next July, for those coming newly into the 1948 scheme the ten years are up and they will be given the full pension. In the light of the facts which have been placed before the Committee, it seems to me that there is a very strong case for considering helping those who receive modified pensions. I certainly believe that there is a strong case for saying that these pensioners should receive a full increase instead of a proportionate increase. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is unable to accept the new Clause, we hope that at least he can give an assurance to the Committee that this matter will be examined, in the light of the facts placed before us tonight, with a view to something being done for these pensioners.
I should like to begin by offering my sympathy to the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) in his difficulty in drafting. I have certainly found from bitter experience that something which starts out as one thing in one's brain turns out to be something very different on the Notice Paper. I should like to endorse what the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) said about the clarity with which the hon. Member for Openshaw dealt with this matter. That clarity was admirably followed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West. If the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) thinks that any injustice has been done, I should be very grateful if he would let me have the cases. I will certainly look closely at them.
I understand that the effect of the new Clause would be to give a standard rate of retirement pension to the existing beneficiaries at July, 1948. Those existing beneficiaries are those who qualified for pension under the system before 1948. As hon. Members have pointed out, those existing beneficiaries are the ones who are receiving these modified pensions. The aim of the new Clause is to abolish the system of modified pensions which is paid to all those who entered the contributory pensions scheme at the age of 45 or more from excepted employment.
As the hon. Member for Openshaw said, those excepted employments included the Post Office, the Civil Service, local Government, the railways, and so on. Those employments were excepted because they carried pension rights which were at least as favourable as those under the then national scheme.
Under the contributory pensions Acts, those who had entered late from excepted employment did not receive the 10s. pension. They received a reduced pension which depended on two things, first, the age at which they had entered into insurance and, secondly, the number of years that remained for contributions to be paid for pension. Here, I must watch myself very carefully or I shall run into trouble with the hon. Member for Openshaw. When the Labour Government increased the 10s. pension to 26s., those with modified pensions under the contributory pensions Acts had their pensions increased to a proportion of 26s. A similar principle has been followed whenever the main rate of retirement pension has been increased.
I will certainly see—and no doubt he will do it without my seeing—that my right hon. Friend reads the words of the hon. Member for Openshaw and the hon. Member for Gateshead, West. But I should not be honest with the Committee if I held out any hope at this point that this difficult matter could be reconsidered so long after the new scheme came into operation.
Is there any valid argument at all to defeat my argument, other than the suggestion that because we on this side of the Committee did not do it in 1950 or 1951 it is not right and proper to do it now? It does not seem to me that that sort of argument can hold water. I should like the hon. Gentleman to offer me an argument of substance to show why what I have urged today should not be carried out.
The hon. Member has not yet allowed me to finish my speech, and I have not yet given him the arguments which lead us to the conclusion that we cannot do what he asks. If I may finish my speech, I think I shall have given the hon. Gentleman, whether or not he agrees with it, the argument which weighs with us in the decision that we shall have to maintain.
The proposed new Clause, about which the hon. Gentleman was commendably modest, does not do one thing and does another. What it proposes is to bring these modified pensions up to the standard rate, even though the reason for the modification of the pensions was a deficient contribution record, which would have earned only a reduced pension under the new scheme that operates at present.
Under the Contributory Pensions Acts, the pensions of those who entered insurance as voluntary contributors depended, rather naturally, on the yearly average of contributions paid. We feel that it would be wrong, and a contradiction of the insurance principle, that those who contributed only intermittently should receive the full pension in the same way as those who contributed more regularly.
Secondly, what the proposed Clause does not do is to embrace all modified pensions which are paid to contributors under the old scheme who had been in excepted employment. In 1948, there were transitional provisions which provided that those who would have had modified pensions under the old scheme, who reached pension age between 1948 and 1953, received modified pensions on what can only be described as an escalator Clause up to the top limit of the standard rate. Those who receive the standard rate were those who reached pension age from July, 1953, onwards. As the hon. Member probably realises, under this proposed Clause these people would not have their pensions increased.
The hon. Gentleman interrupted me to ask what reasons mainly move us in having to reject this proposed Clause. It is not only the reason that all Governments since this question arose, when they have increased retirement pensions, have only increased these modified pensions in proportion, although that argument would weigh a little with all of us, because all Governments of different parties have given this matter very close consideration. The reason they have decided that it would be impossible to do so was perhaps because it would be unfair to many others with a deficient contribution record who, Parliament has rightly decided in the past, should not qualify for full rate of pension. That is mainly why I shall have to advise the Committee to reject this proposed Clause.
The hon. Gentleman has given some cogent reasons for not doing what is proposed in the Clause, namely, to give the full rate of pension to modified pensioners and other classes who do not get the full rate. He has not answered the suggestion that perhaps on this occasion, in view of the situation as we now know it—the rise in prices, the removal of the tobacco concession, and so on—they might be entitled to the full increase of 10s. on their modified pension, however arising.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would address himself to that aspect of the subject. I can understand why he feels he cannot go as far as my hon. Friend proposes, but can he not at least undertake to consider again whether these people should not also have a 10s. increase in view of the circumstances which have given rise to the increase of 10s. a week in the standard pension?
I listened carefully to the reply of the Minister, but he did not convince me that there was any valid reason why this proposed Clause should not be accepted. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) is not wedded to its wording. What he wants is the principle. In view of the fact that on 5th July, 1958, we shall be conceding full pensions to people who only came into insurance for the first time upon 5th July, 1948, with ten years' contributions, it seems to me unreasonable to continue with these partial pensions.
The fact that it was decided in 1946 and 1948 was understandable. We were then moving into a period when we did not know exactly how it would work out. We have now had about ten years' experience, and it seems to me that it ought to be possible to meet the case of those people who entered the voluntary pensions scheme as soon as they were allowed to do so. People in the industry in which I was employed were in precisely the same position, and they entered immediately they were permitted to do so.
It is true, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, that the pension was determined over a period of years and that the contributions were measured in that way. But surely we are now in a new position. People who have been in the scheme for ten years will draw the full pension, whereas people who have been paying a bigger total contribution, paying the contribution of both the employer and the employee for nearly twice as long—eighteen and nineteen years in some cases—are to be denied an equivalent pension.
Surely a person who had never previously been in insurance and has paid only the contributor's share for ten years is not entitled to a bigger pension than a man who entered at the first opportunity open to him and has paid the share of the contributor and the employer for a much longer period.
The words in the proposed Clause are immaterial. Are the Government prepared to accept the principle and say that they will have another look at the matter, that they believe that an injustice is being done to these people, and that they will bring in a form of words of their own at a later stage?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I was a little slow in rising, but I had intended to reply.
There is nothing that I can add on the main question, but I should like briefly to reply to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr D. Jones). The right hon. Gentleman's argument would be effective on the occasion of any pension increase, because presumably any pension increase which has ever taken place has been to compensate for the decreased purchasing power of the existing pension. I cannot
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools spoke about late-aged entrants who entered the scheme in 1948. I am glad that. Parliament at that time was able to give such an opportunity to these people. However, it is also true to say that the people who will shortly begin to receive their pensions have been paying contributions at a very much higher rate than the men and women at whose benefit the Clause is directed. I cannot add anything there.
Have not these people, who have been paying the contributions of the contributor and the employer, been paying during the period when they have been contributing more than the people who will shortly be receiving full pensions?
Might I draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that I referred to a case where a man had paid 52 contributions a year for eighteen years? If there is anything more regular and fuller than that, I should like to know what it is.
|Division No. 8.]||AYES||[8.45 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Albu, A. H.||Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Griffiths, William (Exchange)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Grimond, J.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hale, Leslie|
|Awbery, S. S.||Cronin, J. D.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Crossman, R. H. S.||Hamilton, W. W.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Hannan, W.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)|
|Benson, G.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Hastings, S.|
|Beswick, Frank||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Hayman, F. H.|
|Blackburn, F.||Deer, G.||Healey, Denis|
|Blyton, W. R.||Delargy, H. J.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Boardman, H.||Diamond, John||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Dodds, N. N.||Holman, P.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Dye, S.||Holmes, Horace|
|Boyd, T. C.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Edelman, M.||Howell, Denis (All Saints)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Hoy, J. H.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Hubbard, T. F.|
|Burke, W. A.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Fernyhough, E.||Hunter, A. E.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Fienburgh, W.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Finch, H. J.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Fletcher, Eric||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.|
|Champion, A. J.||Gibson, C. W.||Jeger, George (Goole)|
|Chapman, W. D.||Gooch, E. G.||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Clunie, J.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)|
|Coldrick, W.||Grey, C. F.||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)|
|Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Oliver, G. H.||Snow, J. W.|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Oram, A. E.||Steele, T.|
|Kenyon, C.||Orbach, M.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Oswald, T.||Stonehouse, John|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Owen, W. J.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Lawson, G. M.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Ledger, R. J.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Pargiter, G. A.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Parker, J.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Paton, John||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Peart, T. F.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Pentland, N.||Thornton, E.|
|MacColl, J. E.||Popplewell, E.||Timmons, J.|
|MacDermot, Niall||Prentice, R. E.||Tomney, F.|
|McGhee, H. G.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Viant, S. P.|
|McInnes, J.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Wade, D. W.|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Probert, A. R.||Watkins, T. E.|
|McLeavy, Frank||Proctor, W. T.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Pryde, D. J.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Mahon, Simon||Randall, H. E.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Rankin, John||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Redhead, E. C.||Willey, Frederick|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Reeves, J.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Reid, William||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Rhodes, H.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Mason, Roy||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Mellish, R. J.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Monslow, W.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Moody, A. S.||Ross, William||Woof, R. E.|
|Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)||Royle, C.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Mort, D. L.||Short, E. W.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Moss, R.||Shurmer, P. L. E.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Moyle, A.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Mulley, F. W.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Skeffington, A. M.||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. Et. (Nantwich)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Cole, Norman||Green, A.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Cooke, Robert||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Gurden, Harold|
|Ashton, H.||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Cunningham, Knox||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Currie, G. B. H.||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Dance, J. C. G.||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)|
|Balniel, Lord||Davidson, Viscountess||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Barber, Anthony||Deedes, W. F.||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Barter, John||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||du Cann, E. D. L.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Duncan, Sir James||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Duthie, W. S.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Elliott,R. W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)||Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Errington, Sir Eric||Hornby, R. P.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Farey-Jones. F. W.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.|
|Black, C. W.||Fell, A.||Horobin, Sir Ian|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Fisher, Nigel||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Forrest, G.||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Fort, R.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.|
|Braine, B. R.||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Hurd, A. R.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Freeth, Denzil||Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Gammans, Lady||Hutchison,SirIanClark (E'b'gh, W.)|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Hyde, Montgomery|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Gibson-Watt, D.||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Glover, D.||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Glyn, Col. Richard H.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Godber, J. B.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Goodhart, Philip||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)|
|Carr, Robert||Gower, H. R.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Channon, Sir Henry||Graham, Sir Fergus||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Grant, W. (Woodside)||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Marshall, Douglas||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Kaberry, D.||Mathew, R.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Maude, Angus||Russell, R. S.|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Mawby, R. L.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Kershaw, J. A.||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Shepherd, William|
|Kimball, M.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Kirk, P. M.||Moore, Sir Thomas||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Lagden, G. W.||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Lambton, Viscount||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Nairn, D. L. S.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Langford-Holt, J. A.||Heave, Airey||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Leather, E. H. C.||Nicholls, Harmar||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Leavey, J. A.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Storey, S.|
|Leburn, W. G.||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Oakshott, H. D.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.||Teeling, W.|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Llewellyn, D. T.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Thomas. P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Osborne, C.||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Page, R. G.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Partridge, E.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|McAdden, S. J.||Peyton, J. W. W.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Macdonald, Sir Peter||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|McKibbin, Alan||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Pott, H. P.||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Powell, J. Enoch||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Rawlinson, Peter||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Redmayne, M.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Maddan, Martin||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Renton, D. L. M.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Robson Brown, Sir William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Bryan and Mr. Finlay.|