HC Deb 12 April 1938 vol 334 cc1003-29

For the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Act of 1933, improved fixtures or fittings shall not be deemed to include new or improved fixtures or fittings provided in pursuance of an order of the sanitary authority, or replacements of fixtures or fittings due to the disrepair of the fixtures or fittings replaced.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Johnston

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This problem has exercised the minds of every Royal Commission on the Rent Acts. I could go back to previous inquiries, but I will content myself with quoting from the report of the Marley Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps look up. On page 34, the committee said: Reports of the previous committees leave no room for doubt that the 25 per cent. increase was expressly awarded for this purpose (of repairs on an adequate scale), and, in our view, a tenant has a right to expect that his landlord will do his duty in this respect. The succeeding paragraph says, while they made no recommendation for altering the permitted increase: We are satisfied that owners can no longer claim that the permitted increase is not adequate for its purpose. The evidence that we have received, however, shows that in many districts repairs are not being adequately carried out, although the law provides ample machinery of a varied character for securing that they should be. What are the facts, within the knowledge of, I am sure, every Member of this House? The law provides that the owner of a controlled house shall be permitted to add 25 per cent. to the standard or 1914 rent for the purpose of providing repairs on his property. The law does not say that an owner must provide repairs every year or that when he has taken the 25 per cent. from his tenant he must at any time provide the repairs upon his property. All that the law says is that the owner shall be entitled to exact from his tenant 25 per cent. for the purpose, which he can exercise or not as he chooses, of executing repairs upon his property. In any other transaction, if one party to a contract takes a sum of money annually from the pockets of the other party to the contract, and does not fulfil the obligation which is the foundation of his taking the money, he is, I submit, guilty of fraud and theft. Yet here he is permitted to go on doing this year after year with no penalty attachable to him in the courts for his failure to provide the repairs; he is permitted to exact year after year the 25 per cent. from his tenant.

At the end of the day, if and when a local authority comes to him and says: "Your property has been allowed to fall into serious disrepair and it is now, in our view, a menace to the public health" —it may, indeed, have been a menace to the private health of the tenant for many years, owing to the failure to undertake repairs—"and we order you to provide X.Y.Z. improvements in the way of new fitments," what does the owner do then? He continues to draw his 25 per cent. but, if you please, he is now permitted to add 8 per cent. per annum for the cost of the new fitments. I would ask the Minister whether he can give us any justification why it should be 8 per cent. That is a very handsome rate of interest for a yield on a man's investment in maintaining his own property, and the law permits it in addition to the 25 per cent. for repairs.

Royal Commissions have been unable to see any means of stopping it. It is known that there are hundreds of thousands of properties up and down the length and breadth of the land where no repairs are undertaken. Year after year nothing is done. At the end of the day another 8 per cent. of the cost of what are called new structural repairs is added on to the backs of the tenants. I have tried at Question Time in this House to extract from the Minister figures and information as to the fluctuations in the cost of repairs since 1920, when this permitted 25 per cent. was put on. The Minister gave figures which showed that there has been a progressive reduction in the cost of repairs, so that if it was right and proper in 1920 to give a proprietor 25 per cent. it is wrong that he should get 25 per cent. now. The right hon. Gentleman gave figures to show—I think he quoted them from the Marley Committee's Report—that the cost had fallen from somewhere about 280 to 150 or 180; in other words had fallen about one-third. Yet the owners continue drawing that 25 per cent. If it was right for them to get it in 1920 it is wrong that they should get it now, even supposing they had to spend the money on repairs.

I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland at Question Time what the movement of prices was, and he answered me most unfairly. He simply recited the English figures. His Department knows that the movements of costs in Scotland are different from those in England, and the Department is in possession of figures showing the movement in Scotland. The Government is aware that hundreds of thousands of owners are not spending the money and that under one guise or another new fixtures are charged 8 per cent. upon the tenant. We are asking that no fixture or fittings shall be chargeable which is put in by order of a sanitary authority or in replacement of a fixture or fitting due to disrepair of the existing fixture for which a 25 per cent. increase of rent has been charged for perhaps 15 or 20 or more years. We raised the matter in Committee and the right hon. Gentleman gave us smooth words, but no one knows better than he that the present position is indefensible. The figures are all against him. We are simply asking for common justice.

7.3 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

A moment ago hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were complaining of the hard hearts shown by the Government and were using as evidence the fact that the new Clause then just proposed had not been accepted. I am sensitive to that argument. I notice that we have had only four new Clauses, and one of them has been accepted, so the success of the Opposition has been 25 per cent. up to date. I think I am entitled also to call attention to the fact that we have been driven to a Division on each of the other three, notwithstanding the devastating and shattering arguments that have been adduced from this Box. I have made these preliminary remarks because, unfortunately, I must ask the House not to accept this Clause. I say that with regret because something of an apparent case can be made for doing something of the kind that this new Clause seeks to do. I hope I am revealing no secret when I say that for a very considerable time recently we have been wrestling with the problem as to whether anything could be done along these lines, and we have regretfully come to the conclusion that it cannot.

In order that I may carry the House to agreement with me in this point of view, may I remind them what the existing position is? I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, on the principle oflucus a non lucendo, threw as much light as I should have liked to see. There is a difference between repairs and what he is asking for here, which is the installation of improved fixtures or fittings. For repairs a 25 per cent. increase is permitted and, if they are not done, there is machinery by which the tenant can see that the increase is not paid. This is not repairing. We are dealing with the installation of fixtures and fittings. What caused me a great deal of interest in the problem was that it is obvious that there comes a point at which it is very difficult to draw the line as to what is an improvement and what is a repair. If, for example, you have a bath with a hole in the bottom and you put a patch on it, that is obviously a repair. If you take it out and replace it by a more up-to-date bath, is it a replacement or a repair? It only needs to be stated to see how difficult it is to draw the line between what is purely repair and what is replacement. Section 7 of the Act of 1933 provides that: For the purposes of the 1920 Act expenditure on the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings in a dwelling-house, not being expenditure on decoration or repairs, shall be deemed to be expenditure on the improvement of the dwelling-house. That Section clearly contemplates that some exependiture on improved fittings or fixtures will, notwithstanding that they are expenditure of that kind, be repairs, and therefore not be entitled to rank for the 8 per cent. increase, and therefore, it is only in respect of improvements of fixtures or fittings which are not repairs that the landlord is entitled to demand an extra rent of 8 per cent.

Mr. Bellenger

Is that not for structural improvements only?

The Solicitor-General

No. Under the 1920 Act it was only for structural improvements, but Parliament expressly added the words that I have just read from the 1933 Act for a specific purpose, namely, to encourage landlords to go in for expenditure which will provide added benefits to the house—a valuable inducement to landlords to recondition houses and to provide more up-to-date appliances. In so far as expenditure of that kind is a repair, it does not entitle the landlord to increase the rent by 8 per cent. It is only in so far as it is a genuine addition or an additional or improved fixture or fitting to the dwelling-house.

Mr. Bevan

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point. A sanitary inspector would obviously have no power to issue an order asking for something that would amount to a structural alteration in the house unless it were necessary to put the house into a reasonable state of repair. The order of the sanitary inspector is referred to in the Clause. Surely the landlord ought not to have additional money merely for conforming with the law.

The Solicitor-General

I am only trying to make clear what the Act of 1933 exactly does. It might have been thought, from some observations of the right hon. Gentleman, that it permitted the landlord to charge 8 per cent. in respect of any improvements or additions that he made to the house, whether they were by way of repair or not. That is not so. It is only in so far as they are additions or improvements which are not repairs. The new Clause proposes that, where the new fixtures or fittings are replacements of the old ones or have been ordered by the local authority, there shall be no permitted increase of rent. It, therefore, does not permit an increase of rent even in those cases in which the replacement has been an improvement. To that extent it discourages the good landlord from putting in a more up-to-date article than was already in the house. It goes on to provide that if it is provided in pursuance of an order of the sanitary authority, again it shall not rank for the increase. That seems to be going a good deal too far.

Supposing the sanitary authority directs that new larders are to be added, or that a water closet is to be added instead of an earth closet which exists; the consequence of that is that the tenant has a better house. He has a house to which the old rent ceases to have the same relevance as it used to have. So we feel in the circumstances that this very limited return that the landlord is entitled to have, amounting to 8 per cent., which works out at£2 a year, or 9d. a week, on a£25 house, is definitely an encouragement to landlords to recondition their houses and bring them up to date, and to provide better appliances than they might otherwise be expected to provide.

Mr. Cassells

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the tenant is being penalised financially as the result of the shocking carelessness on the part of the landlord in past years in not having dealt with repairs by degrees? A new tenant might come into a house that is in a shocking condition. Repairs have to be executed and he will be penalised to the extent of 8 per cent.

The Solicitor-General

That is a point that occurred to me yesterday. Supposing you could theoretically divide up the expenditure into the part that is appropriate to disrepair and the part appropriate to the improvement. We attempted to do that, and we failed. There is no practical method of making a provision that will divide up the expenditure and allot part of it to repairs and part to improvements. Let me take an example which occurs to me in consequence of the point which the hon. Gentleman has just put. Take the case of a kitchen range, which may at the moment be perfectly serviceable in the sense that it will cook meals and so on, but which is not in keeping with the ranges in similar houses in the same district. In these circumstances the landlord agrees to provide a new range, and he charges his 8 per cent. It is true in a sense that, of that capital expenditure, some will in theory represent the disrepair which has accumulated over a period of years, and which ultimately, although it has not yet happened, will drive the range out of existence. At the moment it is a serviceable range, though not very good. What one would like to do, if it were possible, would be to devise some formula whereby we could divide that up and say that the part relevant in any particular instance to disrepair will be separated out, and only the balance will be countable as an improvement. But that is not what this Clause attempts to do.

Mr. Bevan

Which part of the Clause are you dealing with?

The Solicitor-General

I am dealing with the last part of the Clause, which refers to replacements of fixtures or fittings due to the disrepair of the fixtures or fittings replaced. There is another matter to which I think it is worth while to call attention. Underlying this proposed new Clause is the suggestion that landlords have been increasing rents under Section 7 when they have only been replacing worn-out fixtures by new ones of substantially the same kind. We know of no evidence to support that suggestion. In so far as the replacement is not really an improvement, but a repair as defined by Section 2 (5) of the Act of 1920: for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair, no increase is authorised. It is only when it passes into the different category which I have been trying—it is not very easy—to define as it appears in the Act of 1933, that is to say, when it is something which is not a repair, but in a real sense a replacement, that the 8 per cent. comes into force. We feel that it would be a serious discouragement to landlords and an obstacle in the way of rehabilitation of premises if it did not, and we feel that, broadly speaking, such an added burden would not be an unreasonable one, but one which most tenants would be very glad to undertake in order to get the advantage of more up-to-date fittings.

Mr. Johnston

Do we understand the Solicitor-General to say that the Government have no evidence that landlords were taking the 25 per cent. year after year and not making the necessary repairs?

The Solicitor-General

Not that there was no evidence that the landlords were taking the 25 per cent. for repairs. Of course they are——

Mr. Johnston

And not doing them?

The Solicitor-General

—and doing them I am not addressing my argument to the case of mere repairs, because there the tenant can get redress. If the repairs are not done, he can get a certificate and withhold the increase of rent until they are done. But the Ridley Committee, apparently, did not have anything like enough evidence on this point to justify them in making a recommendation of the kind that the Clause suggests.

7.21 p.m.

Sir P. Harris

I could not help thinking that the Solicitor-General was living in a kind of "Never Never Land"—some dream place that he has imagined. Or is it that Nottingham, which is the home of the lace industry, is different from the parts of the country with which I am familiar? As far as I can make out, he imagines that landlords are going round to the class of property where the rent increase is to be limited in future, begging the tenants to accept improvements, reconstructions and decorations which the landlords will only be too pleased to do in order to make charming houses in the miles of dull dreary streets with which we are familiar. I may have been unfortunate in my experience. I know that there are exceptions. There are big estates where the landlord takes a great pride in his property, and in such cases, as a general rule, the landlords will not press for 5 per cent. on their rent in order to pay for the extra cost. But in the case of the kind of property with which I am familiar, it nearly always happens that repairs are not done until they are forced on the landlord, either by the tenants going to the town hall or by the fact that the house has become unfit for habitation. When the house gets into such a condition that the local authority forces the landlord, under pressure from the tenant, to bring the sanitary arrangements up to date and make them usable, the landlord should not be entitled to an increased rent to cover the cost, and that, I understand, is the purpose of this proposed new Clause.

It is not a revolutionary one, but a very reasonable one. The Solicitor-General admitted that it was reasonable, but he had to say that he was not skilful enough, or his draftsmen were not skilful enough, to distinguish cases of this kind. Really, I do not think that that is worthy of the Solicitor-General. I noticed that the Minister of Health kept quiet, smiling benevolently. He has some experience of working-class districts. For many years he was associated with Finsbury, and he knows the atrocious class of property in that neighbourhood. I am sure that, if he applied his ingenious brain to this matter, with the assistance of his skilled draftsmen and experts at the Ministry of Health, he could find words, which I assume my right hon. Friend would not be unwilling to accept, to do what I believe the House of Commons desires, and what certainly tens of thousands of working people think is reasonable and practical. It seems fundamentally wrong that, when a landlord is forced to put his house in decent repair and make it habitable, the tenant should be mulcted in increased rent.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Bevan

I could not understand why the Solicitor-General was put up to answer on what, after all, is not a point of law, but a matter of policy. It is not customary for Law Officers of the Crown to discuss policy of this kind. The Minister of Health need not look surprised. He has two expressions at all events, one of benevolence and one of surprise. I would like to see an expression of agreement. There are no legal complications involved, though the Solicitor-General tried to make a number of them. The first point that was made by my right hon. Friend was that the landlords should regard themselves as being particularly fortunate because they are still enjoying the 25 per cent. for repairs, even though the cost of repairs has fallen by more than 75 per cent. since the 25 per cent. was put on. Therefore, there is no justification for any landlord who has allowed his property to get into such a condition of disrepair that a sanitary inspector's order is necessary. The first part of the proposed new Clause would not come into operation except on the order of a sanitary inspector. What difficulty is there about that class of case?

It may be argued that Section 7 of the Act of 1923 was perfectly reasonable in order to encourage good landlords to improve their houses, but the Clause deals with the bad landlord, who not only has not improved his house, but has allowed it to become so bad that a sanitary inspector's certificate is issued in respect of it, and it says that the 8 per cent. shall not be charged in respect of any new or improved fixtures that are put in pursuance of an order of a sanitary inspector. The sanitary inspector must issue his certificate within the framework of the existing law; in other words, he can ask no more of the landlord than he can depend in the courts as being necessary to put the house in conformity with the law. He has not a roving commission; he cannot put what he likes into his certificate; he is limited by the law to instructing the landlord to carry out repairs which will make the house, not a superior house, but a house conforming with the minimum standard of health requirements laid down in the Act. Therefore we say that, with respect to repairs or additions of that kind, the landlord ought not to be allowed to charge 8 per cent. I would ask the Solicitor-General whether there is anything complicated about that? We are entitled to know. We are here to defend the interests of hundreds of thousands of poor people, because this deals with the poorest class of property, and I would ask the Solicitor-General not to try to deflect the attention of the House by a few legal tricks.

The second part of the Clause presumably raises some technical difficulty. It says that the 8 per cent. shall not be charged for replacement of fixtures or fittings due to the disrepair of fixtures or fittings. The point about that is that the landlord in the first place must have neglected to keep those fittings in repair before he can be refused the benefits of Section 7 of the Act of 1933. Take the case that the Solicitor-General suggested as an example—the case where a fireplace is replaced by a modern range. If the landlord can show that the fireplace was in a perfectly good condition, and that he is going to put in a range in its place, he will, even if this Clause is passed, still be entitled to the benefit of the 8 per cent. He is denied the benefit of the 8 per cent. only if it can be shown that the range had been allowed to fall into a condition of disrepair. Again, it is a penalty imposed upon a bad landlord. It is not a deterrent to a landlord improving his property.

The two parts of the Clause are intended to penalise bad landlords who, having been able to enjoy 25 per cent. of the standard rent for all this period, have nevertheless allowed their property to fall into disrepair. There are no complications about administration of this sort. The Minister of Health, who is supposed to be engaged in an anti-slum campaign, ought to accept it with enthusiasm. I have suspected for some time that, as in his attitude in this House, there was more wind than reality about his campaign. We have attempted in Committee, as on the Report stage, to get improvements in the Bill for tenants and impose disabilities on bad landlords. The Minister has been the champion of bad landlords throughout and, in rejecting this Clause, he deprives the House of an opportunity of forcing bad landlords to suffer under disabilities that they ought to suffer under until they mend their ways.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

I do not propose to say much at this stage. I hope that later I shall have an opportunity of saying a word on the Clause which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), which will deny to bad landlords not only the 8 per cent. but a bit more. I hope the Minister will accept that. If he indicates that he will do so, it will be unnecessary for me to say any more. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General said that the arguments uttered from the Box by Ministers on previous Clauses have been shattering and devastating, so that the Opposition had been rendered completely speechless. I wonder by which of these two adjectives he describes his answer on this Clause. I do not feel either shattered or devastated. I feel that the Solicitor-General tried to get as involved as possible, in making out that every fitting had a dual personality, that it was part repair and part additional fitting, and that it was impossible to separate one from the other. Jekyll and Hyde could not be less inseparable. The landlords must get their 8 per cent. I should not have thought such a separation would have been impossible for a landlord who sees his right to take 25 per cent. when he has done repairs worth 5 per cent. A landlord who can do this wonderful operation, surely would not have difficulty in seeing how much of his 8 per cent. he was entitled to. The Solicitor-General thinks the landlord should be coddled all the time.

He referred to the question of appeals. In my constituency that does not function; but, even there, the Solicitor-General is not prepared to go to the length of allowing that type of appeal on the 8 per cent. Presumably the landlord is to have the last word. He is to be the sole judge as to when he can put another 8 per cent. on the rent. If he puts a new knob on the front door he can come forward and say that that is a new fitting, and that the rent is to go up 8 per cent. As far as I can understand, he is the valuer of the capital expenditure on the particular fitting. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not made a case. I am not going to spend more time on arguing this, because the later Clause will cover the 8 per cent.; but I think a case has been made out for the Solicitor-General agreeing, perhaps not to accept this particular Clause, but to do something to reduce the unchecked power of the landlord, whenever he does a little structural alteration, to come forward and use it as a reason for charging additional rent.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren

The Solicitor-General seemed to suggest that he was seriously perturbed as to the inseparability of two elements, namely, repairs and improvements. I quite admit that the last thing we should do is to discourage landlords from effecting improvements. On the other hand, if a person charges a tenant 25 per cent. for the fulfilment of a duty, and does not discharge the duty, there should be some action. The person receiving the money should be dealt with in no uncertain manner. But that does not meet the point made by the Solicitor-General. If the difficulty lies in the confusion between what is an improvement and what is a repair, here, surely, is a formula. An improvement to any house is something that will increase its rateable value. If there is any difficulty in the matter for the Solicitor-General, I will solve it for him now. A repair is something which is fulfilling a contract made when the tenant entered the house; something which is maintaining the house but not increasing its rateable value. We have a clear definition now. The Solicitor-General spoke about a bath being put into a house. That does not increase the rateable value. That is a repair. Putting in a new grate for an old one is a repair. If any grate gets into such a condition that it is necessary for the tenant to use the force of the sanitary authority, that is an alteration that should have been made before. I am prepared to take this into court and put it before any judge as a clear definition between a repair and an improvement. Now that I have cleared this up for the Solicitor-General—this is more in my line than his, as it is my work to do these little jobs—there need be no difficulty about it.

I admit that the Clause rather mixes improvements and repairs: it should have been drafted in such a way as to avoid using the word "improvement"; but there is need for something to be done. On the Solicitor-General's statement this has been worrying him, and he has been trying to face it. In my division I have the same difficulty. Time and again, when I was on the corporation, people would come to me and show me the most deplorable conditions: No repairs had been carried out; and I would have to take these people's cases into my hands, because if I had told them to take action under the provisions of the Act they would have been cleared out of the houses. I had, as a member of the corporation, actually to go down and defend these people from the ordeal that would have resulted from their taking action under the Act itself. This Clause, or something like it, must be put into the Bill. I am not making any party capital out of this. As a pure matter of machinery, it is highly essential. I hope something will be done, because it is affecting the lives of the poorest of the poor in these horrible wens in the centre of the crowded districts of the Black Country, where the housing conditions are abhorrent.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson

I do not see any legal difficulty in this problem. With great respect to those who have been attacking my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I do not think that he really meant by his speech to indicate that this is what he and I would call a legal difficulty, as distinct from a somewhat different difficulty arising from a question of fact. It does not lead me to think that the object at which this Clause is aimed is other than a good object. But, inasmuch as my hon. and learned Friend said that he had a good deal of sympathy with the difficulty that we know arises in connection with this 25 per cent., why should we not at least make a beginning? What justification can there really be to allow repairs which have been executed under an order of the sanitary authority to be dealt with under the Sub-section referred to in the Clause?

With the best will in the world, and impressed as I always am by the legal reasons which my hon. and learned Friend gives, I can see no difficulty in this matter. I think those who drafted the Clause have, however, got themselves into a difficulty by using in the second line the words "new or improved fixtures." I think the words "or improved" have probably caused a good deal of discussion, and have indicated a difficulty where perhaps none really exists. If the words "or improved" were left out, then—speaking for myself, and having in years gone by had some experience of the difficulties that arise in particular cases, and knowing how extraordinarily difficult it is very often to resolve problems that arise under these Acts —I see nothing in regard to this problem which is so difficult that it cannot be resolved as a question of fact.

With regard to the end of the Clause, I can see some problems which would instantly arise, and which might do that which I have consistently- opposed in this House in connection with all amendments of legislation dealing with this problem, namely, encourage a further crop of litigation between people who ought not to be involved in litigation, for the simple reason that they cannot afford it. Any legislation or any Amendment that may be passed ought to bear that circumstance in mind. My object in intervening is to invite the Minister to give further consideration to the proposed new Clause and the problem involved, and to ask him whether he cannot consider the first part of it, subject to the criticism which I have ventured to indicate.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Cassells

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. CroomJohnson). The speech of the Solicitor-General was highly uninformative. He indicated that, so far as his opinion was concerned, there was definite ambiguity in the law at the present time as regards the definition of improved fixtures or fittings. The last speaker referre I to the fact that the Clause contains the words "new or improved fixtures or fittings," but one finds that that phrase is in the Act of 1923, Section 7 (1), to which the Solicitor-General referred. Therefore, the party on this side should not be saddled with that responsibility.

To my mind, there is no legal complication as regards this question. The issue is perfectly concise in this respect, that with the law as it presently stands the landlord is entitled in respect of repairs to levy an additional charge upon the individual tenant of 25 per cent. on the rent chargeable at 3rd August, 1914. The Solicitor-General spoke glibly and flippantly about the legal rights which the individual tenants possess under Act of Parliament in so far as that 25 per cent. charge is Concerned. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he pointed out, quite properly, that in his particular community the legal procedure, in so far as the tenant is capable of doing it, is highly ineffective.

In my own experience it is very often a most difficult thing to obtain a sanitary inspector's certificate. You pay your shilling to the local authority and the sanitary inspector goes under the Act of Parliament for the purpose of certifying whether or not the subjects are reasonably fit for human habitation, but it is only in the most extreme and the very worst cases that one fortunately manages to obtain the necessary certificate. I remember one case where we could not get the sanitary inspector's certificate. I personally, visited the subjects, and I could not understand why the certificate was not given, but at the end of the day we found out that the reason was that the sanitary inspector himself was the proprietor of the subjects.

With regard to the question of the 8 per cent., I agree with the point which the Solicitor-General, probably with some justification, made, that there is a definite difference in the wording of Section 71 of the Act of 1933 as compared with the wording of the Act of 1920. But from the practical point of view, in actual practice, as the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) pointed out, there is no difference. The 8 per cent. purely applies, with the legal position in Scotland, to structural alteration or improvement. I would ask the Solicitor-General this question: Will he apply his mind to the wording of Section 7 of the Act of 1933: For the purposes of paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 192o, expenditure after the passing of this Act on the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings in a dwelling-house (not being expenditure on decoration or repairs). What is the opposite of expenditure on decoration or repairs? It is only one thing, namely, expenditure on structural alteration or improvement. That is the point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause, that with the law as it now stands there is no compulsitor to effect timeously structural alterations or improvements. I can give an illustration within my own knowledge coming from the district where the right hon. Gentleman lives—Kirkintilloch. There, a landlord allowed over a period of years a dwelling-house to lapse into a state of dilapidation. A new tenant comes in and the landlord immediately sets about certain work there, on which he incurs a capital expenditure of£80. After the work has been done he goes to the new tenant and says: "You are compelled under Act of Parliament to pay me annually 8 per cent. on this capital expenditure." Although we went to court and pointed out how vexatious the whole problem was, and how improper from the moral standpoint it was that the landlord should do this, the answer we received from the judge was that he had no discretionary power, and that he could not go into the past and deal with the particular conduct of this man

Is there any cogent reason why a tenant, who has the right to obtain a sanitary inspector's certificate with regard to the 25 per cent., should ultimately be mulcted with the 8 per cent.? Why should the tenant not have the same right to call in the local authority and say that these particular charges are being levied, that they are being levied illegally, that the repairs have not been executed and that the structural alterations and improvements have not been executed? The Solicitor-General would be acting in justice to himself and his party if he was prepared to respond to this very proper Clause that has been moved.

7.55 P.m.

Mr. Viant

The argument that has been adduced since the Solicitor-General spoke ought to have convinced him of the justification of our appeal. I paid close attention to his speech, and it occurred to me that he was evidently out of touch with the practice of this House. In practice, the Act has given the landlords, in general, a 25 per cent. increase in rent, because in 99 cases out of 100, in my constituency at least, the repairs are not carried out, and the tenants have the utmost difficulty—many of them are quite unaware of their right—in obtaining a certificate for reasonable repairs. Therefore, in practice the Act has given the landlord a 25 per cent, increase in rent.

I noted the illustration which was given by the Solicitor-General concerning a larder. He said that improvements might be made by way of erecting a larder. In conformity with the Act, that would be a structural alteration. The putting in of a door could reasonably be claimed as a structural alteration, but the ordinary replacement of a fireplace, even though it might be superior to the original one, should not be claimed as an improvement justifying another 8 per cent, on the rent. I should like to give an illustration in keeping with the illustration given by the Solicitor-General. I know something of what I am speaking, because I was engaged in the building industry before corning to this House. A larder was flooded with water, there was a defective roof, letting in the water which had rotted the shelves. A builder was called in and the roof had to be repaired. With regard to the shelves, the owner of the property, in order to make his position secure, suggested to the builder that where formerly there were only four shelves he should put in six. Those six shelves were three feet in length, 11 inches wide by one inch thick. The price was 1s. and the necessary labour amounted to 3s.

The owner of the property, having instructed the builder to do that, claimed from the tenant an additional 8 per cent. on the rent. [Interruption.] I am giving an illustration of the way in which this 8 per cent. increase is being imposed all over the country. The tenants are ignorant of the Act. The Government are giving the landlords a 25 per cent. increase of rent and also facilities, of which advantage is being taken to charge an additional 8 per cent. for small improvements. Surely the Solicitor-General must agree that there is some justification for our appeal that he should make this provision clearer and more watertight, in order that ordinary tenants shall no longer be exploited as they are being exploited at present.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede

The Solicitor-General told us that he spent a great part of yesterday wrestling with the law on this matter. I suppose we may take that as a contrast to the picture of a good man wrestling with adversity. It is the first time I have ever seen the companion picture of the hon. and learned Gentleman wrestling with the law, and I was rather reminded of the story of the patriarch who wrestled with an angel and who, having been touched on the thigh by the angel, halted for the rest of his life. It seemed to me that the result of the hon. and learned Gentleman's wrestling with the law was that his argument halted very considerably during this Debate.

I wish to emphasise the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I cannot see what difficulty there is in the way of accepting the spirit of the first part of the new Clause. It is laid down in one of the Housing and Town Planning Acts that it is an implied part of the contract between the landlord and the tenant of a working-class house, that the house is deemed to have been in a state of good and tenantable repair when taken over and that it is the duty of the landlord to maintain it in that state. Therefore, if the landlord is keeping the contract which the law says is implied in the relationship of landlord and tenant, he can never be in a position in which the first part of the proposed new Clause could become operative against him. This does not deal with any requirement of the sanitary authority higher than the demands that can be made under the Section to which I have just alluded. I cannot see why it should be considered either difficult or improper to insist that when the landlord has to carry out these repairs at the behest of the local sanitary authority, he should be unable to charge any additional rent in respect of them. If the sanitary authority is unreasonable in its demands, he has his remedy. He can take them to court and get the Order set aside.

Nor can I see great difficulty in the way of accepting the last part of the Clause. Where these are replacements of fixtures or fittings rendered necessary by the fact that the landlord has allowed them to get into a condition of disrepair, I cannot see why he should be entitled to additional rent from the tenant for those replacements. My hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) has already given an instance of the way in which landlords misconstrue the law in this respect. No doubt they do it in good faith. They become so used to taking 3 per cent. on the biggest figure they can think of, that even when the amount of the increased rent is bigger than the amount of repairs, they still take the 8 per cent. I have known of similar cases, and I know of one case in which the tenant was unaware that he had been overcharged until he discovered it accidentally. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should indulge a little longer in that wrestling with the law to which he referred. We have tried to simplify the matter for him and we hope that in the less complicated state in which the matter is now presented to him he may find it possible to accept, if not all the points which are raised in this new Clause, at any rate the spirit of the proposal which it makes.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Ammon

If the Solicitor-General cannot accept the new Clause in this form, I hope he will give it consideration with a view to having something done on these lines in another place. I wish to meet the point which has been raised by him and other hon. Members regarding the words "improved fixtures." The fault, if there is any in these words, does not lie with the framers of this new Clause because these words have been copied from previous Acts. Section 2 of the Act of 1920 contains the words Where the landlord has since the fourth August‥‥ incurred expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of the dwelling house. Again, in Section 7 of the Act of 1933 we find the words: the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings in a dwelling-house.' These words, therefore, have been employed in the proposed new Clause with the idea of proceeding along the lines laid down in previous Acts. By this time I think the Solicitor-General must feel that the crushing and devastating arguments have not come from his side in this Debate. Argument has been piled on argument to show him the strong case which exists for the acceptance of this Clause, or a Clause on similar lines. He said earlier that there was no evidence that ordinary replacements were charged, at any rate that they were charged as repairs. In the Second Reading Debate I gave the House some evidence of the extent to which this is done. I gave the names of the particular financial groups concerned, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) has given yet another instance.

I repeat what I said on that occasion. There are operating in London two or three large financial groups. There is one estate company which has charge of large blocks of working-class property, and when ordinary replacements have to be made they issue to their tenants long lists indicating special charges to be made by them. For instance, if a bath has to be replaced in a house, the tenant is charged an additional is. a week rent, and that goes on as long as the tenancy lasts. If a sink has to be replaced because it is out of repair, they charge the tenant an additional 6d. a week, because they tell him that they have replaced the old sink by a deep sink. Where they replace an ordinary zinc copper, they charge another 6d. a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) put his finger on the spot and incidentally suggested the lines on which the Government might meet this proposal, when he said that the only legitimate claim for increased rent in respect of improvements was where the improvements led to an increase in the assessable value of the property. To put in a deep sink, or a few extra shelves, are not improvements which, of themselves, create an increased assessment. They are just the ordinary replacements.

I gave a case which arose in the part of my own constituency which borders on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith). A bay window had to be replaced by order of the district surveyor. It was replaced by a new bay window of a different shape, and because the new window was of a different shape an additional 6d. a week was charged on the ground that it was an improvement. This is the kind of thing to which I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give consideration. They may seem trivial to us, but 6d. or a shilling a week on a working-class household is an additional burden. What is more it is an outrage and it is robbery to charge increased rents for replacements which are complying only with the ordinary elementary decencies of housing. That is the problem which we ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider. The use of the word "improvement" can be explained in two ways—first, because it is used in the earlier Acts and, secondly, because the provision of such a necessity in the household economy as a modern sink in place of an old one is, undoubtedly, an improvement. But it is also a necessity, and it is to meet that case that we put forward this new Clause.

If the hon. and learned Member finds the present wording of the Clause a stumbling-block in the way of its acceptance I am sure that those who support it will not be at variance with him, should he assure the House that the Government are willing to look into the matter and to find words of their own to meet the position which has been described and prevent the continuance of practices which amount almost to blackmail imposed on poor tenants by people who take advantage of the situation. I suppose that my own borough council is no exception in this respect, but every time the council meets we find on the agenda indications that certain people are being called on to carry out repairs to property. We find then in another column that these people have paid up 13s. or whatever the amount may be in order to escape having to go into court. By that means they have the summons dismissed, but it shows how far people of this kind will go. They go to the fullest lengths, knowing that while two or three tenants may seek advice from the borough council and get an apportionment, thousands of others will not do so and thus they get away with it in the manner I have indicated. In that way the whole intention and purpose of the Acts are being defeated.

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I hope I indicated in my opening remarks that I felt that there was a good deal to be said in support of this Clause which has provoked such a lively discussion. I merely wish to say this in advance of any further remarks which I have to make. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) quoted certain words of mine and treated them as though I had been saying that the draftsmen had been unable to do what they were wanted to do. Let me remove the draftsmen out of it altogether. The draftsmen are assiduous and painstaking Civil servants, but like other Civil servants, it is their duty to do what they are told, and we have to accept the responsibility. If anything that I said seemed to place the responsibility where it does not rest, I hope that the House will understand that I did not mean any such thing. I meant to say that I had devoted as much intelligence as I have to seeing whether in some way this could be met, and had come to the conclusion that, concurrently with the requirements of policy, it was not practicable.

I am afraid that, as a result of the Debate, that view has not been shaken Let me tell the House some of the reasons why it has not been shaken. First of all, I will deal with the instances given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). They both gave instance where, following upon trifling alterations to the property, increases of rent were made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell instanced the putting in of a deep sink where there had been a shallow one, in respect of which the landlord made a demand for a further 6d. a week in rent. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Willesden spoke of the case of putting in a few shelves of the value of 3s. and adding 8 per cent. to the rent. Nothing that this Clause does will affect that position. Both these matters are breaches of the existing law. I cannot conceive that a deep sink would cost£I7 or£8. A capital expenditure of £17 or£8 would have to be shown to be expenditure upon improvements before an additional rent of 6d. could be demanded. Of the two instances that have been given the stronger was that given by the hon. Member for West Willesden. If a landlord puts 8 per cent. on the rent after spending only 3s. on shelves, he is breaking the law and committing a criminal offence. There is a penalty provided in Section 3 of the Act of 1920, and he can be taken to the court and fined.

These are not instances of the kind that really are relevant or helpful to the discussion we are undertaking at the present time. Ours is, I am afraid, a much more difficult problem, and the extent of the difficulty was perhaps made clear by the instance given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who has, unfortunately, had to leave the House, but who had the courtesy to tell me so. He said that the matter was so simple, because if you put in a bath when the old bath was worn out or a grate when the old grate was worn out, that was a repair. The answer to that is, if it is a repair, it does not attract the 8 per cent. That is clearly provided for in the Section of the Act of 1920 which everybody seems to overlook, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. CroomJohnson), who has laid his egg and departed. For the purposes of the relevant Section in the Act of 1920 the expression "repairs" means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping the premises in good and tenantable repair. Therefore, a great deal of this discussion has been upon the wrong basis. If you put in a bath because the old bath is no longer such that the house is in tenantable repair, you are only doing a repair, and it does not attract the 8 per cent. at all. It is only in cases in which it is an improvement and is not a repair that the question arises at all.

A point was made—and it seemed to be a very formidable one—as to why, in any case, if a fixture is provided in pursuance of an order of the sanitary authority, that should not conclude the matter. I confess that I examined that question also, but I want to give the House one or two reasons why it would not perhaps work out quite as well as it would appear. Suppose, for example, that in an area it was known that the sanitary authority was about to make a new direction that earth closets were to be substituted by water closets. The ingenious and profit-making landlord would substitute for his own closet a water closet before the sanitary order was made, and it would rank for the 8 per cent., but the landlord on whom the sanitary authority made on order would not receive the 8 per cent., so that of two houses standing side by side, one would bear the burden of the capital cost of the water closet and the other would not bear that burden. That is an example of the way it would work. I will take another example. Suppose you have two local authorities in one of which an order is made by the sanitary authority for a particular requirement and in the other no such order is made. Comparable houses, assuming equivalent rentals in both cases, would be bearing different rentals as a result of the action of the sanitary authority. In the one case, if the landlord likes to be up-to-date and makes the improvement, he gets the 8 per cent., and if he does not, the old rent prevails. If the sanitary authority makes the order no improvement can be claimed.

Those are the difficulties that present themselves in the exceedingly easy matter of accepting what the Clause says, but there is a further difficulty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell, and, I think, some other hon. Members said, "You cannot blame us for the words, because we took the words from the 1933 Act." That is perfectly true, but in the 1933 Act those words were utilised in order to attract the extra 8 per cent. They are used in this Clause in connection with words that repel the 8 per cent. There is all the difference in the world between using those words in association with the negative in the Clause, and using them in association with the Clause in cases where you enable the landlord to do something. As the Clause stands—and that is what the House has to judge by—if the sanitary authority directs that a fixture which is an improvement shall be installed, the landlord shall not be entitled to charge anything in respect of the cost of that improvement. In so far as it is a repair, it is covered by the existing law, but whether it is a repair or not, if it is ordered by the sanitary authority, it will not attract the extra 8 per cent. Therefore, I fail to see on what footing the sanitary authority is to be the arbiter in respect of the definition of what is a repair and what is an improvement.

Mr. Bevan

The sanitary inspector cannot ask for any alterations to be carried out except in pursuance of statutory obligations imposed upon him. He cannot go beyond what is imposed by the town council.

The Solicitor-General

It is not so simple as that because it has been decided in the courts, in the case of Free v. Callendars Trustees, that where a house has no sanitary conveniences except an earth closet and the landlord builds a water closet it is a structural alteration, not a repair and, therefore, attracts the 8 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that a sanitary authority can order some things which do not come within the category of repairs.

Mr. Bevan

A sanitary inspector cannot order a water closet unless it has been made a general order by the council.

The Solicitor-General

I agree, but that does not alter my point. The sanitary authority does not decide the question as to whether it is a repair or improvement, and for these reasons, although I appreciate the arguments which have been put forward, we cannot accept the new

Clause. I should like to add one thing. I will be perfectly frank. I do not intend to give any undertaking at all, but in the light of the discussion that has taken place we will look into the matter again and see whether there is any reasonable way in which effect can be given to some of the desires expressed by hon. Members on all sides of the House. I do not intend, and I hope the House will not misunderstand, to give an undertaking that the Amendment will be made in another place. I have no reason to think that the discussion has removed our difficulties, but we will look into it again and if it should prove a more practicable problem we will see what can be done in another place.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 185.

Division No. 177. AYES. 8.28 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Oliver, G. H.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Groves, T. E. Paling, W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Parkinson, J. A.
Ammon, C. G. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pearson, A.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Aske, Sir R. W. Hardie, Agnes Price, M. P.
Banfield, J. W. Harris, Sir P. A. Pritt, D. N.
Barnes, A. J. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Quibell, D. J. K.
Barr, J. Hayday, A. Ridley, G.
Bellenger F. J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Riley, B.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Ritson, J.
Benson, G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Bevan, A. Hicks, E. G. Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)
Broad, F. A. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Bromfield, W. Holdsworth, H. Salter, Or. A. (Bermondsey)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hopkin, D. Seely, Sir H. M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jagger, J. Sexton. T. M.
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Silverman, S. S.
Burke, W. A. John, W. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cape, T. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cassells, T. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Chater, D. Kelly, W. T. Stephen, C.
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cocks, F. S. Kirby, B. V. Summerskill, Edith
Cove, W. G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Daggar, G. Lathan, G. Thorne, W.
Dalton, H. Lawson, J. J. Thurtle, E.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leach, W. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, F. Tomlinson, G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Leonard, W. Viant, S. P.
Ede, J. C. Leslie, J. R. Walkden, A. G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Logan, D. G. Walker, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Lunn, W. Walkins, F. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Watson, W. McL.
Foot, D. M. McEntee, V. La T. Westwood, J.
Frankel, D. Mander, G. le M. White, H. Graham
Gardner, B. W. Mathers, G. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Gaorge, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Maxton, J. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Milner, Major J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Montague, F. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Muff, G. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Noel-Baker, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Gledhill, G. Pilkington, R.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds. W.) Gluckstein, L. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Albery, Sir Irving Gower, Sir R. V. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Gridley, Sir A. B. Prooter, Major H. A.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) Grimston, R. V. Radford, E. A.
Assheton, R. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Ramsbotham, H.
Bernays, R. H. Hannah, I. C. Ramsden, Sir E.
Blair, Sir R. Harbord, A. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Boulton, W. W. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Rayner, Major R. H.
Broad bridge, Sir G. T. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Bull, B. B. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. Hepworth, J. Ropner, Colonel L.
Butcher, H. W. Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Butler, R. A. Holmes, J. S. Rowlands, G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Cartland, J. R. H. Hopkinson, A. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Carver, Major W. H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Russell, Sir Alexander
Cary, R. A. Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Channon, H. Hunter, T. Salmon, Sir I.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Hurd, Sir P. A. Salt, E. W.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Hutchinson, G. C. Samuel, M. R. A.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Sandys, E. D.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Joel, D. J. B. Shakespeare, G. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Craven-Ellis, W. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Latham, Sir P. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Liddall, W. S. Spears, Brigadier-General E L.
Cross, R. H. Lindsay, K. M. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Crowder, J. F. E. Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Cruddas, Col. B. Lloyd, G. W. Strickland, Captain W. P.
Culverwell, C. T. Loftus, P. C. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Tate, Mavis C.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) McCorquodale, M. S. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
De la Bère, R. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D. McKie, J. H. Titchfield. Marquess of
Denville, Alfred Magnay, T. Touche, G. C.
Doland, G. F. Maitland, A. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duggan, H. J. Markham, S. F. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Duncan, J. A. L. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Warrender, Sir V.
Eastwood, J. F. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Eckersley, P. T. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wayland, Sir W. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Ellis, Sir G. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Wells, S. R.
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Emery. J F Munro, P. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Errington, E. Nall, Sir J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Erskine-Hill, A. G Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Wise, A. R.
Everard, W. L. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Withers, Sir J. J.
Findlay, Sir E. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Fleming, E. L. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Fox, Sir G. W. G. Palmer, G. E. H. Wragg, H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Patrick, C. M. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Furness, S. N. Peat, C. U.
Fyfe, D. P. M. Petherick, M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Captain Dugdale and Major Herbert.