HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1943-57
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to move, in page 53, line 25, after "section", to insert: or the interest to be acquired is the interest of an Owner-occupier of a building within the meaning of this section. I think it would save the time of the House if at the same time I referred to the further Amendment in page 54, line 45. Clause 47, makes temporary provision for eliminating the enhanced value of land between now and the notional date of 1st January, 1954, owing to the value of vacant possesion at the present time and in the ascertainable future. What is provided is that if land is being compulsorily acquired during that period, the enhanced value attributable to vacant possession, and the enhanced value of buildings, because of vacant possession at the present time, should not have to be paid by the acquiring authority. Provision has already been made for the exclusion of agricultural land and buildings from that provision.

My right hon. Friends and I want to go further and to exclude land or buildings belonging to an owner-occupier, and we define what we mean by an owner-occupier in the further Amendment in page 54, line 45. The position I think will be quite clear to the House. If a local authority is acquiring land which, by definition, includes buildings, it is to give an owner-occupier from whom it acquires, market value for its present use. The Government say, under this Clause, "Well, that was right, but at the present time we would have to give a very much enhanced value where we are getting vacant possession because everything is up in price." That is quite true, but they say that in the limited period between now and a date when notice to treat is served up to 1st January, 1954, they will give instead a restricted value determined in accordance with the provisions of this Clause under which the notional lease idea is introduced.

That is all right from the point of view of the Government, but what about the point of view of the individual whose property is acquired? Take a man who owns a house which he has had taken from him compulsorily and who is given less than the fair market value. He has to go out into the cold hard world and re-house himself with the money he has received, and when all the prices are raised against him. The Government recognise that prices have gone up, so they say, "We will give you less than the enhanced value." Yet this man has to go into the market and find another house. There should be some provision in this matter. The Government have made provision for the owner-occupier of agricultural land. Why cannot they make provision for the owner-occupier of a house? That is stating it as briefly as I can.

Commander Galbraith

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be in sympathy with this Amendment. It is simply facing the practical difficulty which exists for these people who are dispossessed. They have to find other accommodation, and they cannot find it unless they are compensated at the existing value of their house. There is no answer to it. You simply cannot get accommodation today unless you get from your existing property the present-day value for it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.

The Lord Advocate

As far as the agricultural owner-occupier is concerned, we have gone a long way, but it is very dim-cult to exclude actual owner-occupiers from the notional lease provisions any further without having to make concessions in other ways.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

It is very difficult for the owner-occupier unless that is done.

The Lord Advocate

The same sort of situation arises under the 1945 Act. There one was driven to make concessions to other persons. Once one begins to make concessions to other persons, one begins to get into difficulties. What about the owner of war-damaged property who is anxious to re-occupy it as soon as he can rebuild, and various other types of that kind? Once one begins to get into classes of that sort, one has to consider the intention of the person in relation to the house he is occupying. The real trouble in the owner-occupier case is not so much the monetary problem as the difficulty of getting alternative accommodation. That is the real practical problem. I would remind the House that the new basis of compensation is really much more favourable than the basis originally put forward. We have gone a considerable distance to meet the owner-occupier in this way. I am afraid the difficulties of going further are too great.

Commander Galbraith

May I put this question? Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that private persons have got to be fined, so to speak, because of a public need, that in fact the burden which should be borne by the community has to be borne by private individuals?

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to treat us to a completely illogical argument of this character, and to admit that he is refusing to do justice for one class of case because that would require something else to be done in another and smaller class of case, we cannot on this side of the House accept that kind of thing. I will resume the matter in a few sentences. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made no attempt to show that injustice is not being done in a large number of cases where owner-occupiers of non-agricultural houses are concerned. Therefore, I take it as common ground in the House that the Bill as it stands is going to do injustice in that type of case. If any hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I would be glad if he would do so.

Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)

If that remark is directed to me, I have no intention of interrupting. I thought the right hon. and learned Member was resuming his seat, and I meant to say a word or two.

Mr. Reid

I saw the hon. Gentleman half rise and I invited him, as I thought perhaps he had a point to make. There is no doubt that if the Bill is allowed to stand as it is, the owner-occupiers are not going to get the present market value of their houses, even though it is obvious from their circumstances that they must get another house to replace the one taken away from them, and therefore, these owner-occupiers—and they are the great majority—who have to find another house for their families are being given much less money than will be required to buy that other house. If that is not injustice, I would like to know what is. That being admitted, the Government are deliberately imposing injustice on this section of the community. What is the argument? The only argument is that if we do justice to these people, there are a few others left in the cold, and we will have to think of something for them. They are only a few. The only class mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were people suffering from war damage, who are very infrequent in Scotland, and very easily dealt with. It is inconceivable that it should be said in this House that justice should be refused to 95 per cent. because it is difficult to give it to the other 5 per cent. of borderline cases. If that is the argument of the Socialist Government, we mean to go into the Lobby against them.

Mr. Rankin

I would like to say a word on this Amendment, because frankly, when I looked at it, it seemed to me on the face of it to be a reasonable Amendment to put forward. If I took it simpliciter, I would urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to have another look at it and to see what can be done; but—there is a "but"—I do not grasp the implications of the statement made by the Lord Advocate. I ask him to say now that if this Amendment were accepted, it would have, by its acceptance, repercussions of a most serious nature, and that, while in itself it may be simple and reasonable, these repercussions would be serious. If that is the case and he is prepared to say so, it would certainly help me in whatever decision I make.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison

I would like to know what are the implications of the "repercussions" of which the Lord Advocate has given a hint, a hint which, as I interpret it, meant that the repercussions would be minor compared with the fairness that would be the immediate effect of our Amendment. I am not a Member of long experience, but I never heard a more lame excuse given for the attitude taken by a Government than that given by the Lord Advocate in this case. He was clearly uneasy and unhappy, and I sympathise with him because I under- stand his discomfort. He said that it was very difficult to make provision—thereby implicitly agreeing that provision should be made—because of the difficulties that would arise, and that the Government would find themselves pressed in other directions. In other words, the Government would, in fact, be in a difficulty; but this Government ought by now to be used to being in difficulties. They are pressed by them on all sides, but they fob off a small matter of this kind by saying, "We, the great Socialist Government, cannot get ourselves out of the difficulty while we have inflicted on the country thousands of greater difficulties." That is an argument which I, for one, absolutely fail to understand, and cannot accept.

11.0 p.m.

This is a temporary need, but let us admit that it may recur. However, it is not a situation which is going to continue in perpetuity, and, therefore, it is a temporary business for a small section of the community. Yet, with their eyes open, the Government recognise that they are inflicting a hardship and, with their eyes open, they propose to continue to inflict that hardship, because they have created difficulties which they have failed to solve. The Lord Advocate also said that this was not a monetary problem, because even ii more money were given he indicated, by implication, that the dispossessed owner of a house would fail to find an alternative place. We cannot accept that explanation either. The Government are going to dispossess an owner-occupier and say to him, "It does not matter how we do it, you are not going to find another house." That was, in effect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.

Mr. McKie

I must confess that in the last two years I have heard some very lame speeches from the Treasury Bench, but I do not think I have ever heard in this Parliament a poorer case than that put up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In effect, he said absolutely nothing. It was with great difficulty that I followed his subdued tone. I can quite understand that, because he was very bashful in presenting a very bad case. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). I was buoyed up into hoping, as I listened to the beginning of his speech, that we were going to see on this occasion from the placid third Bench—always noted for the docility with which it follows the Government—a free and independent point of view. I thought we were going to see an independent point of view which would even compel the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

I think the hon. Gentleman should start dealing with the Amendment before the House.

Mr. McKie

With all respect, that is what I am dealing with, in my own way. I was saying that I was buoyed up by listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston, and I thought that he would go into the Lobby with us in default of a reasonable explanation by the Lord Advocate of his reasons for resisting this Amendment, because the hon. Gentleman asked the Lord Advocate to give his reasons. It is true, however, that in the concluding sentences of his speech, the hon. Gentleman associated himself more or less in toto with what the Lord Advocate had said. In hushed voice he told us that, inevitably, there would be serious repercussions. I ask him what repercussions there would be in granting this very modest request, namely, that the people who are being expropriated, the owner-occupiers, shall not be mulcted, because that is what it will amount to, as the owner-occupiers will not be receiving any enhanced value. They will be doubly mulcted. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston cannot run away from it, because there is no doubt that he will have several cases in his own constituency. These people will come under the operation of this Bill without an enhanced value being given to them. Then where will they be? They will be left to drift into the world without being able to obtain new houses—houses are difficult to obtain anywhere—having been denied them by the Government which especially claims to be speaking for the working classes. Owner-occupiers are small people of the working class. No one can say where the working class begins or ends, and these are of the working class.

The hon. and learned member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) seems to think this is a matter for hilarity. I would have thought he would have associated himself with the words I was saying, because many people in Hammersmith will be in the same category as the people of whom I am speaking. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously to reflect again, and to realise that it would be much the wiser course to associate himself with us in the view we have expressed, rather than to espouse the course he has. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will perhaps make another reply. I think it is due to us on this side. These are people who will be deprived of their homes; certain numbers will be deprived of their homes without being given an enhanced value.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon Member is now repeating what he has said two or three times before.

Mr. McKie

I had no intention of so doing. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us what he proposes to do to find these people new quarters, and having deprived them of any enhanced value, to protect them in the market from the prices which will be demanded of them.

Mr. Buchanan

May I say a word or two about the allegedly inadequate statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has made similar claims about every speech we make, so it does not very much matter. The point here is this: The owner-occupier gets full market value. Let us get that clear. What we do not pay is market value plus the right of immediate entry. The house which can be sold with immediate entry has an additional, inflated value: that is different from the house that is sold without immediate entry.

Commander Galbraith

Supposing a man has to leave one town to go to another; he has to give vacant possession, and he has to get a different house. He has to pay the price for vacant possession in another house.

Mr. Buchanan

I was going to deal with that point. We pay full market value. What we do not make any attempt to do—I say this frankly—is to assess payment with immediate entry attached to it. I say that frankly because hon. Members are talking about the matter. I say that we wish we could have got our people in the past as reasonable terms as the owner-occupier is offered today.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

The hon. Gentleman has made that point with some heat, as he has made points once or twice before. He says that the Government pay full market value. Under Clause 47 they do nothing of the sort. Unless he is familiar with that Clause, he ought not to put forward that claim. Clause 47 introduces a notional lease, the lease expiring on 1st January, 1954.

Mr. Buchanan

We are saying that we are paying full market value. We say to the owner-occupier that he should be provided with suitable alternative accommodation. That is a tremendous step forward. I wish I had seen the ordinary shopkeeper, for whom on both sides of the House there is human sympathy, getting this guarantee that he would have an alternative place to which to go. We are giving full market value plus an alternative place to go, and in this way we are giving a liberal treatment.

Commander Galbraith

Will the Joint Under-Secretary really deal with the question I have raised? What happens to the man who has to get out of his house and move to another town and get vacant possession there? Is he being paid fair compensation?

Mr. Buchanan

We are not making him move, but we are saying he will get a house similar to the one he has got.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

How?. Can we be absolutely sure that anyone turned out of his house will get a similar house of size and quality? There are not the houses to be had.

Mr. Buchanan

We are saying in this case that he will get it, otherwise action will be taken; and I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would recognise these facts. We think that the treatment of the owner-occupier is comparatively decent. I was asked about the repercussions. Once you grant any kind of concession, you are driven to go further.

Commander Galbraith

We are asking for justice, not concessions.

Mr. Buchanan

Take the position of the farmer. The moment we granted it to him, the nurserymen would want it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the owner-occupier?"] We are saying there are classes of people with cases just as irresistible.

Commander Galbraith

They are not many.

Mr. Buchanan

The bombed-out persons are another case, and I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) says that there are not many.

Commander Galbraith

But that is the very point I am rubbing in. The Joint Under-Secretary knows he is being unjust, and he continues to be unjust. I am surprised at him.

Mr. Buchanan

What is all the barking about? I am keeping my temper with the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok.

Commander Galbraith

I find it very difficult to keep mine with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Buchanan

At least the hon. and gallant Member is alleged to have been born a gentleman, and to have had some schooling which I never had, and he should pay tribute to that education, which I was unfortunately denied. At least I never had his upbringing, and if I could not conduct myself better than he is doing I would leave it alone. We are being just and fair, and are paying full market value.

An Hon. Member

You are not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think the Minister should be allowed to make his speech without these constant interruptions.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

On a point of Order. The Minister is making a travesty of the facts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member, as he moved the Amendment, will have, if he chooses, the right to reply.

Mr. Buchanan

With the notional lease we are paying full market value. I think we are putting the whole case reasonably fairly and properly, and I trust my hon. Friends to support us.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

The Joint Under-Secretary has said several times that the Government are paying full market value under Clause 47. May I remind the House of what, in fact, they are doing? They are saying that where a local authority acquires land compulsorily, under terms of notice to treat served before 1st January, 1954, they will not pay the full market value of a house with vacant possession; they will instead invent the fiction of a notional lease with a tenant who has to go out on or after 1st January, 1954. They are, therefore, eliminating the enhanced value which attaches to land at present owing to its scarcity value. They are therefore, in my submission, not paying the market value, or anything like the market value.

Our submission in Committee was to make a special concession in the case of an owner-occupier of agricultural land. We are asking the Government now to make that concession in respect of the owner-occupier of a house. They say they cannot do so. They recognise, I suppose, the justice of our claim, but they say—in some of the lamest speeches I have ever heard—that it would cause repercussions, and injustice here, there, or somewhere else. We say that a Government of planners ought to be able to plan to eliminate these injustices. It is monstrously wrong for an owner-occupier to have his property taken from him by the action of the State and not to be given sufficient compensation to enable him to go out into the cold world, where all the prices are raised against him—as admitted by the Government—and rehouse himself in a property comparable to the one he occupied before. That is the basis of our contention. There is no point in labouring the case. We can only show our great indignation in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 186.

Division No. 301.] AYES. [9.47 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Colman, Miss G. M Gunter, R. J.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Comyns, Dr. L. Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Cooper, Wing-Comdr G. Hale, Leslie
Allen, Scholeheld (Crewe) Corbett, Mrs. F. K. (Camb well, N.W.) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Alpass, J. H. Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow) Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Attewell, H. C Corlett, Dr. J. Hardy, E. A.
Awbery, S. S. Corvedale, Viscount Harrison, J.
Ayles, W. H. Crawley, A. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Baird, J. Crossman, R. H. S Hobson, C. R.
Balfour, A. Daggar, G. Holman, P.
Barstow, P. G. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Barton, C. Davies, Hadyn (St. Panels, S W.) House, G
Battley, J. R. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hoy, J.
Bechervaise, A. E. Deer, G. Hubbard, T.
Benson, G. Diamond, J. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Berry, H. Donovan, T. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Beswick, F. Driberg, T E. N. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Bing, G. H. C. Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich) Irving, W. J
Blackburn, A. R Dumpleton, C. W. Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A
Blenkinsop, A Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Janner, B.
Blyton, W. R. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Jay, D. P. T
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W Evans, John (Ogmore) Jeger, Dr. S. A (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L.P Exch'ge) Fairhurst, F. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Farthing, W. J. Keenan, W.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Field, Capt. W. J. Kendall, W. D
Brooks, T. J. (Ruthwell) Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.) Kenyon, C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Follick, M. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Kinley, J.
Buchanan, G. Gaitskell, H. T. N Kirby, B. V
Burden, T W Ganley, Mrs C S Lang, G.
Burke, W. A. Gibbins, J. Lavers, S.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Gilzean, A Lee, F. (Hulme)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Champion, A. J. Gooch, E. G. Leonard, W.
Chetwynd, G. R. Gordon-Walker, P. C Leslie, J. R.
Cobb, F. A. Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood) Levy, B. W.
Cocks, F. S. Grenfell, D. R. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Coldrick, W. Grey, C. F. Lindgren, G. S.
Collindridge, F. Grierson, E. Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Collins, V. J. Griffiths, Rt. Hon J (Llanelly) McAdam, W
McAllister, G Porter, G. (Leeds) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V La I Proctor, W. T Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
McGhee, H. G. Randall, H. E Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Mack, J. D Ranger, J Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Rankin, J Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W) Rees-Williams, D. R Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Reeves, J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Macpherson, T. (Romford) Reid, T. (Swindon) Thurtle, Ernest
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Ridealgh, Mrs. M Tiffany, S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Robens, A. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Martin, J. H Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Usborne, Henry
Medland, H. M Rogers, G. H. R. Vernon, Maj. W. F
Mellish, R J Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Viant, S. P.
Messer, F. Royle, C Walkden, E.
Middleton, Mrs L Scollan, T Walker, G. H
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R Shackleton, E. A. A Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Milchison, G. R Sharp, Granville Wallace, H. W.(Walthamstow, E.)
Monslow, W. Shurmer, P Weitzman, D.
Moody, A. S. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Morgan, Dr. H B Simmons, C. J. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Morris, P (Swansea, W.) Skeffington-Lodge, C. C While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mart, D. L Skinnard, F. W. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Moyle, A Smith C. (Colchester) Wilkins, W. A.
Nally, W. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Willey, F T. (Sunderland)
Nicholls, H R (Stratford) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Willey, O G. (Cleveland)
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E (Brentford) Solley, L. J Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)
O'Brien, T. Serensen, R. W Williams, W R (Heston)
Oldfield, W. H Sparks, J. A. Williamson, T
Paget, R. T Stamford, W Willis, E.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Steele, T. Wills, Mrs E A
Palmer, A M Stephen, C. Wyatt, W
Pargiter, G A Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Yates, V. F.
Parker, J Strauss, G R (Lambeth, N.) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Paton, J. (Norwich) Stross, Dr. B Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Pearson, A. Stubbs, A. E. Zilliaous, K
Peart, T. F Sylvester, G. O
Piratin, P. Symonds, A. L TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Porter E (Warrington) Taylor, H. B (Mansfield) Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.
NOES
Astor, Hon. M. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W) Rayner, Brig, R
Baldwin, A. E. Hutchison, Col. J R (Glasgow, C.) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Birch, Nigel Kerr, Sir J Graham Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells) Lambert, Hon. G. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Boothby, R Langford-Holt, J. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Bower, N Lucas-Tooth St. H Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Co. W Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Strauss, H. G (English Universities)
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col G Maclay, Hon. J. S. Sutcliffe, H.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt?n, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E Maitland, Comdr J W Teeling, William
Cuthbert, W. N Marples, A. E. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Darling, Sir W Y Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F
Dower, Lt-Col A V G. (Penrith) Maude, J C Vane, W. M. F.
Drewe, C Medlicott, F Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Dugdale, Maj Sir T. (Richmond) Mellor, Sir J White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D. P. M Moore, Lt.-Col Sir I Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gage, C. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Nicholson, G Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Nutting, Anthony
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge) Osborne, C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harvey, Air-Comdre A V Plckthorn, K. Mr. Studholme and
Haughton, S. G. Raikes, H. V Commander Agnew.
Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Ramsay, Mai
Division No. 302. AYES. [11.19 p.m
Agnew, Cmdr P G Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Prescott, Stanley
Baldwin, A. E. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Rayner, Brig. R
Beamish, Maj T V. H Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Birch, Nigel Head, Brig. A. H. Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Ropner, Col. L.
Boothby, R. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Bossom, A. C. Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.) Steddart-Scott, Col. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Keeling, E. H. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sutcliffe, H
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F
Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C. Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight) Wadsworth, G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Cuthbert, W. N. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Darling, Sir W Y Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Drewe, C Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Mellor, Sir J
Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M. Neven-Spence, Sir B. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gage, C. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Mr. Studholme and
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. Osborne, C Major Ramsay.
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Ganley, Mrs C. S Pargiter, G A
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Gibbins, J. Parker, J.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Gilzean, A. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Alpass, J. H Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Pearson, A.
Attewell, H. C Gordon-Walker, P. C Peart, T. F.
Awbery, S. S Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood) Piratin, P.
Baird, J Grenfell, D R Popplewell, E
Balfour A. Grey, C. F Forter E. (Warrington)
Barstow, P. G Grierson, E Porter, G. (Leeds)
Barton, C Guy, W. H. Pritt, D. N.
Bechervaise, A E. Hale, Leslie Proctor, W. T
Benson, G. Hall, W. G. Randall, H. E
Blackburn, A. R Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Ranger, J.
Blenkinsop, A Harrison, J Rankin, J
Blyton, W. R. Hastings, Dr Somerville Rees-Williams, D R
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton) Herbison, Miss M Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt Exch'ge) Hobson, C. R. Robens, A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Holman, P Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Brook, D. (Halifax) House, G. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hoy, J. Rogers, G. H. R.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Hubbard, T. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Buchanan, G. Irving, W. J Royle, C.
Burden, T. W. Janner, B Scollan, T.
Burke, W. A. Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Segal, Dr. S.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Champion, A. J Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Sharp, Granville
Cocks, F. S. Keenan, W. Shurmer, P.
Coldrick, W. Kenyon, C. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Collindridge, F. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E Simmons, C. J.
Collins, V. J. Lang, G. Skeffington, A. M
Colman, Miss G. M. Lavers, S. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Corbet, Mrs. F K (Camp well, N.W.) Leonard, W. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Corlett, Dr. J. Lewis, A. W J. (Upton) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W)
Corvedale, Viscount Lindgren, G. S Snow, Capt. J W.
Crawley, A. McAdam, W. Solley, L. J
Crossman, R. H S McAllister, G Scrensen, R. W
Daggar, G. Mack, J. D. Sparks, J. A
Daines, P. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Stamford, W
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Maclean, N (Govan) Steele, T.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)
Deer, G. Manning, Mrs. L (Epping) Stubbs, A. E.
Diamond, J Mathers, G Sylvester, G. O
Donovan, T. Mellish, R J. Symonds, A. L.
Driberg, T E. N. Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Mitchison, G R Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dumpleton, C. W. Monslow, W. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Ede, Rt Hon J. C. Moody, A. S. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel) Morris, P (Swansea, W.) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Evans, John (Ogmore) Mort, D. L Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Moyle, A. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Ewart, R. Nally, W. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Fairhurst, F. Nicholls, H R (Stratford) Thurtle, Ernest
Farthing, W J Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Ungoed-Thomas, L
Field, Capt W. J O'Brien, T Usborne, Henry
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Orbach, M. Vernon, Maj. W F
Fraser, T (Hamilton) Paget, R. T Walkden, E
Gaitskell, H T N Palmer, A M F Weitzman, D.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Yates, V. F.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Willis, E TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wilkins, W. A. Wills, Mrs. E A Mr. Michael Stewart and
Mr. Hannon.
The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 54, line 17, to leave out from the first "gardens," to "and," in line 19.

In the Committee, an Amendment was put down to leave out the words a person of the labouring classes. That would have meant a definition of agricultural land, including allotments or allotment gardens, and gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre attached to a house. The reason gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre, and so on, were included under the Bill originally was because they were regarded as being of the same character as allotments or allotment gardens. I sympathise with the criticism of the words a person of the labouring classes. which was taken from an earlier statute as a convenient way of describing this type of garden. But it seems best to strike out this type of garden, as it is comparatively unlikely that there will be many gardens of that type.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

This is a mean little Amendment. What the Government are doing here is depriving members of the labouring classes who happen to have a quarter of an acre of garden of their right to market value compensation. We had the argument out before over comparatively well-to-do people, and I suppose the Government now think that, because they are going to deprive other owner-occupiers of justice, they had better give the labouring classes a little of the same medicine. I trust the Government are getting near the end of this idea that they can do injustice when they feel inclined. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there are not many cases, and the simplest plan is just to let them stew.

Mr. C. Williams

I would like to congratulate the Government on what I think is really rather an honest performance. For a very long while they have attached the name "Labour" to themselves; but they do not look much like it. They never have; and I congratulate them on dropping for once this name "Labour," which really does not apply to any Socialist Member of Parliament. The use of that name goes back to the days when there were Labour members. I congratulate the Government most sincerely as far as this Amendment is concerned, and I hope it is an omen for the future.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan

May I, with permission, say this: it is a desirable thing to earn the reputation of being quite a cool, calculating Member. If the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) feels that we are going too far, I would like to say that we do not want to deprive what one might call the ordinary working man of his bit of ground. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of our being mean. I am prepared to discuss the matter with him between now and the time when this Bill reaches another place to see if we can find some other phrase. I have thought of "working class," but that is not the best term either. I do not want to include large houses with gardens. If there is an alternative phrase that can be found, I guarantee that I will look at it with the right hon. and learned Gentleman with as much sympathy as anyone else. Perhaps the best possible man to deal with this is the Secretary of State himself. I have no love of the phrase "labouring classes." That is why we dropped it. On the other hand, I do not want to be driven too far in the other direction. If there is a compromise which we can arrive at between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, I will look at it.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has realised at last that there is a limit to the injustices that this House will tolerate. I will, of course, cooperate with him in removing as much injustice as we can. I am glad that there is one Member on the Government Bench who will co-operate to remove as much injustice as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 54, line 37, to leave out "unencum bered."

This Amendment goes with the next Amendment in line 38. This is one of the alternatives described in Clause 47 rela- tive to the calculation of rent under a notional lease. These two Amendments make it clear that the capital value of premises will be assessed with due regard to any servitudes or other restrictions affecting the land on the date of the notice to quit.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 54, line 38, after"dominium utile," insert: free from incumbrances but subject to any servitude or other restrictions affecting the land on the date of the notice to quit."—[The Lord Advocate.]