HC Deb 05 June 1947 vol 438 cc397-411

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

I beg to move, in page 16, line 5, at the end, to insert: Provided that any person aggrieved by the determination of the Agricultural Land Tribunal on any question of law, may appeal from that determination to the High Court. Like many other matters dealt with by Parliament nowadays, this Amendment will not directly produce any additional food. Its effect is to enable any person who has had occasion to appeal to the agricultural land tribunal and is aggrieved by its decision, to appeal to a legal court of justice on any point of law which may have arisen. This is not a new principle. There have been many precedents where extra-judicial tribunals have had occasion to consider appeals of one sort or another from the citizens of this country. The Solicitor-General will recognise that the Special Commissioners of Inland Revenue are in a somewhat analagous position. In so far as this special tribunal deals with questions of fact, its decisions are final, but in so far as its decision may involve a question of law, the citizen has the right of appeal to a legal as opposed to an extra-judicial court. That right of appeal has not been included in this Bill so far. It may be asked why we should seek to insert this Amendment in regard to this particular right of appeal when there are other rights of appeal in different parts of the Bill. The answer is that this is the most convenient occasion to raise the issue, and that if the Government are prepared to accept the principle, they can introduce amendments to other parts of the Bill. If the Government will assure us that they accept the principle and will introduce the necessary Amendments, I am sure that my hon. Friends will have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.

There are other precedents for this Amendment. For instance, in the Arbitration Act a similar right exists. The principle this Amendment seeks to introduce is already contained in the Agricultural Holding Act, 1923. The only answer which can be produced against this Amendment is that no question of law is likely to be involved in appeals to the agricultural land tribunal. If the Minister sought to proffer that argument he would I think lose the support of his colleague the Solicitor-General. We are dealing with a Bill of some 109 pages, and it is inconceivable, hard though our efforts have been to improve the Measure, that it is as yet perfect. There are an infinite variety of questions of construction which are bound to be raised, and no one can be so brazen as to suggest that questions on interpretation are unlikely to arise.

It is obvious that questions of law are likely to arise, and in this connection I would draw attention to the Clause we are seeking to amend. It provides a right of appeal for any person to whom a notice is given, subject to the foregoing Subsection. If one refers to that Subsection, one finds a cross-reference to Subsections (1), (2) and (3), with a reference back to Subsection (6) which relates to paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure), Act. It is inconceivable, with such a complicated reference, that no questions of construction will arise. The right of a citizen to appeal to a court of law on a legal question is a fundamental right. It is a right which has been recognised in practically every other type of reference to a lay tribunal, and has been specifically recognised in regard to agriculture.

Mr. York (Ripon)

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams)

I cannot accept this Amendment, as I think the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) anticipated. As he said, it will not increase production, but will increase the work of the legal fraternity. The chairman of this tribunal is a lawyer appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and he must be a barris- ter or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing. He will, therefore, be fully competent to decide any question of law. The only question to be decided by the tribunal is whether or not the certificate of the Minister in regard to bad estate management is right or wrong. That is the only point with which the tribunal has to deal, and it is mainly a question of fact and not of law. There is no need for an appeal to the High Court, but if there is any question of the Minister acting ultra vires, there will be a right td go to the courts to quash the certificate to purchase land referred to in Clause 16 There is, therefore, no need to provide for reference to the High Court, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, and that Members opposite will not prolong the Debate.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I am surprised at the answer which the Minister has just given. Too often, nowadays, matters are being taken out of the hands of tribunals and being put into the hands of the Executive, and this is another instance of it. We have the three parts of the constitution—the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Judiciary is the one on which we have to depend for interpretation of the law, and, very often, for the defence of liberty against the Executive. All that is asked for in this Amendment is that questions of law shall be referred to the High Court. The Minister made the rather feeble answer that this will not affect production. Of course, questions of law do not affect production. But what might be involved is a serious matter of law.

The Minister said that the chairman of the tribunal would be a barrister of seven years' standing. May I remind him that barristers can make mistakes? Even High Court judges can make mistakes. Often one has to take their opinion to a higher court in order to ascertain what is the law of the land. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) called the attention of the House to other Acts of Parliament, in particular to those in connection with arbitration. There can be appeals from the findings and decisions of arbitration tribunals to the High Court Such tribunals can be asked to state a case for the opinion of the court on a question of law. Why should not that practice be followed here? Why should not the chairman of this tribunal be asked to state a case if a question of law arises?

Take the example of workmen's compensation in the old days. Questions of fact were referred to the county court judge who, before he was appointed, must have been called to the Bar for seven years. On questions of fact, he was the final arbitrator. There was no appeal on fact at all, but there was an appeal on law. The Minister must not assume that all these things are so easy of interpretation. I would remind the House that one of the most difficult questions that ever arose was: What was the meaning of, "arising out of and in the course of employment?" That led to no end of litigation until, at last, the question was settled by the highest tribunal in the land. It is wrong of the Executive to deprive the subject of the right to have questions of law decided by those who are capable of deciding them, namely, the Judiciary. I hope the hon. Member for Chichester will press this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

I, too, was disappointed with the reply of the Minister of Agriculture to this Amendment, which was moved so clearly and well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I was also disappointed that the Minister came to the Despatch Box, rather than the Solicitor-General. I had hoped, seeing the Solicitor-General by his side, that the House would have had the advantage of his guidance on this important question. But the Minister rushed in where the Solicitor-General feared, or, at any rate, hesitated, to tread, and made a most perfunctory and superficial reply.

The Minister took the view, first, that there would not be points of law and, second, that if there were points of law the tribunal would be well qualified to discharge them. Taking the second point first, on what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman base that confidence? On grounds which I, as a lawyer, must applaud but which, as a member of this House, fill me with some scepticism. The right hon. Gentleman said that because the tribunal would have a chairman who would be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing all the puzzles and problems of the law would be as an open book to him. Well, I am a barrister of a good deal more than seven years' standing, and I am sure no lawyer would claim for barristers or solicitors of not less than seven years standing that omniscience that the Minister of Agriculture so touchingly seems to feel.

The tribunal itself is not the right court to decide legal questions. The Minister said, "It does not much matter, because there will not be legal questions." How does he know that? Surely, the whole of our history argues against so optimistic a proposition. The drafting of legislation, indeed, all legal documents, contracts, and agreements of every sort, is a history of effort to try to make them clear beyond a peradventure, to try to exclude questions of interpretation. The whole of that history is a history of honourable failure, because there are no Acts or forms of contract, which have not time and again to be subject to the interpretation of the courts. It is in the interpretation of these documents that these matters are certain to arise.

What should the remedy be in such cases? I think it was clearly put by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He said that en these points of law, or, if the Minister prefers it, of arbitration—because it is the same for this purpose—the tribunal should follow the well-known procedure of stating a case. The tribunal should state a case on the basis of the facts. It should give a point of law which has to be decided, and on that case the High Court would come to a conclusion on the law. That is the well understood practice. Why should not that be applied in this case?

Lastly, I would like to reinforce the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in regard to the psychological advantage of incorporating into the Statute a provision like this. Even taking the Minister's argument at its highest value, it is worth importing this Amendment into the Bill even if it will not be necessary. If occasions are few then there is all the less work for the High Court to do, but that is no reason for not legislating for these occasions. I agree with my hon. Friend that the right of appeal to the High Court will provide immense reinforcement and encouragement to those to whom this Bill will apply, and from whom it is in the interest of the country that we should encourage the highest effort.

Mr. Lambert (South Molton)

As a layman, I intervene with a good deal of trepidation, but it is with great pleasure that I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). As a farmer and as a Member representing a farming constituency, I resent the fact that the agricultural community as a whole should be denied the right of appealing to a court of law on a point of law, which is given to every other person in the constituency. I had the honour to be a member of the Committee on this Bill, and, more often than not, the lawyers on the Committee spent a great deal of time in disagreement, particularly the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). The Minister says that this will not affect food production; on the contrary, I think that it will. You cannot expect the farming community to give of their best if they are labouring under grievances. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister to see that the agricultural community are treated in the same way as other members of the community.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

I hoped that we were to hear something from the learned Solicitor-General on this point. If he is not disposed to address the House, I would like to make it plain that I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's answer. I have been looking round to see whether the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is here. Since the Committee stage of this Bill, I understand that he has become a King's 'Counsel, so his legal advice has been enhanced. On similar Amendments in Committee upstairs, he made the statement that points of interpretation do arise ands different lawyers and different tribunals may take differing views on them I stress these words because there may be more than one tribunal. It was not quite settled at the time of the Committee, but I understand that there is not to be one tribunal for the whole of the United Kingdom, but that there are to be regional tribunals, and, therefore, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the fact that different lawyers and different tribunals may take differing views seems of some importance. He also stated that if there is a central court which can decide which of these interpretations are right, it might be for the convenience of all the tribunals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 26th March, c. 741.] and he ended by saying that he hoped that this matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage.

Those hopes have gone, apparently, although, in the view of the Government then, the weight of the argument was not very definite either way, because the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government had considered the matter very carefully, and they felt that, on balance, it would be undesirable to introduce words of that sort into the Clause. It looks as if they had discussed the matter with great care and finally come down against us. If it is such a narrow division of opinion as all that, we urge the Government, in the light of the arguments this afternoon, to reverse that decision, and to come down on our side—as the Minister said that he does not expect many cases to arise for different interpretations of the law, and the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that he could not conceive in practice that there would be any substantial points of law between these tribunals at any time. If that is so, it is all the more reason for putting this safeguard in for the small number of cases that may arise. It cannot open the flood gates if the Minister's estimation of the situation is right, and there is ample precedent for words of this kind in somewhat similar Statutes.

It is quite true that this will not affect production directly, although indirectly, as has been said, it may very well do so. It is obvious that on the direct question of whether there is to be appeal on a question of law, that will not affect production to any great extent; but if there is a certain feeling of security that things will not go wrong through misintepretation of what the Act means—because that is what determination of questions of law really refers to—and people feel that they have that much on which to rely, I am of the opinion that it would help the general situation and ease the passage of some of these matters. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) pointed out, this does arise on this Clause—because it seemed the first occasion on which it was appropriate to raise it—and it arises on the all-important matter of possible dispossession.

4.15 p.m.

To come back to the main argument, I think that it would give some confidence to the people concerned, and because we envisage the existence and working of more than one tribunal, we feel that it is for that reason, if for no other, necessary that there should be some interpretation from above to which all the tribunals can conform it difficult questions of law are involved. I hope that the Minister even now will repent. If he shows no signs of repentance, I shall have no hesitation in advising my hon. Friends to take the question to a Division.

Mr. T. Williams

I can only say another word on this with the permission of the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware we have not been unreasonable in our consideration or reconsideration of the points brought to our notice. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) will not have lost sight of the development that has taken place in this particular field since the war. During the war when questions of dispossession arose, the Minister was the only person who could decide—and he did so—on the advice of the executive committees. He could send along his land commissioner, an impartial person acting on the Minister's behalf, for a second point of view and with that second view of the whole of the facts—as distinct from points of law—a decision was taken. The House of Commons, time and again, felt rather worried, first that the executive committees who were the agents of the Minister, were taking a decision, and then that the second point of view obtained was that of a land commissioner who was the Minister's civil servant representative. It was, therefore, argued, from time to time that this was not quite fair, and it caused anxiety among the farming community which might result in a loss of production and that sort of thing. We have gone one step beyond that. I have said that in every case where a question of dispossession is likely to arise the person concerned will have a right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. [An HON. MEMBER: "In war time? "] In peace time. I undertook at a very early date after taking office that in future cases—from the time I spoke in this House—no person would be dispossessed unless and until he had had an opportunity of appearing before an appeal tribunal, and that the appeal tribunal would consist of a legal personality—in whom the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) does not seem to have a lot of confidence—plus a landowner and a farmer. I ask hon. Members whether it is possible to find a tribunal more calculated to give confidence to the farming community than a tribunal of that description.

Mr. Hugh Eraser (Stone)

Not on points of law.

Mr. Williams

The question of dispossession is one not of law but of fact. It has always been felt that to preserve confidence within the industry, it was necessary to employ persons who had the confidence of the industry. We have gone as far as ever the House of Commons could reasonably ask us to go, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will feel that we are not denying the farming community a reasonable opportunity.

Mr. C. Davies

On questions of fact—

Mr. T. Williams

That is all they have to deal with.

Mr. C. Davies

That is all they ought to deal with, but from time immemorial in this country questions of law are submitted to the judiciary, which is competent to deal with them, and that is all that we are asking for. In these cases, if a question of law arises, it should be sent to the people who can deal with it.

Sir John Barlow (Eddisbury)

Farmers in all parts of the country will not be satisfied unless an appeal is allowed in these cases. It was one thing for the Minister to have these great powers in wartime, but in peacetime the tribunal which it is proposed to set up is in my opinion insufficient, and that view is shared by the vast majority of farmers in this country. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Major Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

I think the Minister's second intervention has made the atmosphere even worse than his first, because he is consistently confusing points of law with points of fact. Every appeal and every lawsuit in the world is related to facts, and what we are asking here is that appeals should be allowed only where a point of law is in doubt. It is really no use for the right hon. Gentleman to say that in cases of a landowner's or a farmer's dispossession, or in the case of an owner-occupier losing his entire holding, the only question at issue is a question of fact. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the interpretation of these Clauses will always be entirely factual, and that no questions of law will arise at all on Clauses 10 and 16? Does he mean that no point of law will ever arise on a tenancy agreement, from the point of view of either the landlord or of the occupier? Where a man's livelihood, his home, and probably the whole of his capital invested in a farm are at stake, he really ought to he allowed what every other citizen is allowed, the right of appeal to the High Court from the land tribunal. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in his tribunals that he is afraid of allowing appeals from them to the High Court.

Mr. H. Fraser

It amazes me that the learned Solicitor-General has not helped us on this Amendment; he is sitting there and not taking part, though we had hoped for an interpretation of this. I hope that before this argument is brought to a conclusion we shall have the benefit of his advice. The Minister did not improve his case in his second speech. We all agree that during the war a great many things had to be done, but now surely the point is to see not only that justice is done but that it shall seem to be done. In questions involving a legal point it is surely right that there should be an appeal to the High Court? It seems to us on this side that although questions of law may not necessarily arise, there should be the right of appeal in case they do. If that right of appeal is granted by the Minister a great many people in the farming community will feel far greater confidence in this and in other Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Vane (Westmorland)

The right hon. Gentleman gave us the impression that the main function of these land tribunals would be finding facts in con-

nection with the dispossession of owners or occupiers, in other words, questions of good husbandry or good management. Their functions will, however, be a great deal wider than that. They will deal with the purchase of land, with the control of the splitting up of farm units, with consent to notices to quit, with certificates of bad husbandry and other things besides—I quote them from the right hon. Gentleman's own White Paper—and I suggest that those matters give ample scope for difficulties in the interpretation of the law to arise. If he really means what he says when he says that he wishes for confidence in all the organisations he is setting up, surely he ought to allow the modest right of appeal for which we are asking.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

I am sorry I did not hear the Minister's first intervention, but his second intervention supplied sufficient cause for very acute anxiety in this matter, if his words really mean what they appear to mean. I can only say that the line he is taking would, if it were fully followed out, lead to the abolition of courts of law altogether. The Minister's view is apparently that justice can be done by the appointment of expert bodies without appeal to any court of law. The general thesis behind his argument is intensely dangerous, but I can see no other conclusion from his remarks. I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to put that right; I have great respect for him and I am very sorry that he is being so insulted by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who is undermining the whole standing of the law of this country—which is what is being attacked, indirectly, by the words the Minister used. I hope we shall get some sort of assurance; there is a very serious danger in what the Minister has said this afternoon.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 224.

Division No. 238.] AYES [4.28 p.m.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Carson, E Darling, Sir W. Y.
Baldwin, A. E. Challen, C Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Barlow, Sir J. Channon, H. Digby, S. W.
Beamish, Maj. T V H. Clarke, Col. R. S Dodds-Parker, A. D
Birch, Nigel Conant, Maj. R. J. E Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Cooper-Key, E. M Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon H F C Duthie, W. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, P G T Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E Eccles, D. M.
Bullock, Capt. M Crowder, Capt. John E Eden, Rt. Hon A.
Byers, Frank Cuthbert, W N Elliot, Rt. Hon Walter
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H Ropner, Col. L.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sanderson, Sir F.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Shephard, S. (Newark)
Gage, C. Lipson, D. L. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smithers, Sir W.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Low, Brig. A. R. W. Spence, H. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Grant, Lady Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Gridley, Sit A Maitland, Comdr. J W. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, R. E Studholme, H. G
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Marsden, Capt. A. Sutcliffe, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Haughton, S. G. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Teeling, William
Head, Brig. A. H. Mellor, Sir J. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C Molson, A. H E. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Vane, W. M. F.
Hope, Lord J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Wadsworth, G.
Howard, Hon. A Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Walker-Smith, D.
Hurd, A. Neven-Spence, Sir B Ward, Hon. G. R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Nicholson, G. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Jeffreys, General Sir G Orr-Ewing, I. L. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W Osborne, C. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Keeling, E. H. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Kerr, Sir J. Graham Peto, Brig. C. H. M Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H Ponsonby, Col. C. E York, C.
Lambert, Hon. G. Raikes, H. V.
Lancaster, Col. C G Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Law, Rt. Hon R. K. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N) Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Edelman, M Kenyon, C.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Kinley, J.
Allen, A. C (Bosworth) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Kirby, B. V.
Alpass, J. H. Evans, John (Ogmore) Lee, F. (Hulme)
Attewell, H. C. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Levy, B. W.
Austin, H. Lewis Ewart, R. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ayles, W. H. Fairhurst, F. Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B Farthing, W. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Balfour, A Fernyhough, E. Longden, F.
Barstow, P G. Field, Capt, W J Lyne, A. W.
Bechervaise, A E Foot, M. M. McAdam, W.
Benson, G. Forman, J. C. McGhee, H. G.
Berry, H. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mack, J. D.
Beswick, F. Freeman, Peter (Newport) McKinlay, A S.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Gallacher, W. Maclay, Hon. J. S
Bing, G. H. C. Ganley, Mrs. C S McLeavy, F.
Blackburn, A R Gibson, C. W. Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Blyton, W. R. Gilzean, A. Mainwaring, W. H.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mallalieu, J. P. W
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Gooch, E. G. Mann, Mrs. J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Goodrich, H E. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Marquand, H A.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood) Mathers, G.
Brown, T. J (Ince) Grenfell, D. R. Middleton, Mrs. L
Brown, W. J (Rugby) Grey, C. F. Mitchison, G. R.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Grierson, E. Monslow, W
Buchanan, G. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Montague, F.
Callaghan, James Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Morley, R.
Carmichael, James Gunter, R. J. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A Guy, W. H. Morrison, Rt Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Champion, A. J Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Moyle, A.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R. Murray, J. D
Cluse, W. S. Hardy, E. A. Nally, W
Cooks, F. S. Harrison, J. Neal, H. (Claycross)
Collindridge, F. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Collins, V. J. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Colman, Miss G. M Herbison, Miss M. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Comyns, Dr. L. Hicks, G Oldfield, W. H.
Cook, T. F. Holman, P. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth) Palmer, A. M. F
Crossman, R. H. S. Hoy, J Parker, J
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Parkin, B T.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paton, J. (Norwich)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W) Peart, Capt T. F
Delargy, H. J. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Popplewell, E.
Diamond, J. Irving, W. J. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Dodds, N. N Janner, B. Proctor, W. T.
Donovan, T. Jay, D. P. T. Pryde, D. J.
Driberg, T. E. N Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Pursey, Cmdr. H
Dumpleton, C. W. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Randall, H. E.
Durbin, E. F. M. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Ranger, J.
Dye, S. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Rankin, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon J C Keenan, W. Rees-Williams, D. R
Reeves, J. Sorensen, R. W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurs.)
Reid, T. (Swindon) Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Warbey, W. N.
Robens, A. Sparks, J. A. Watkins, T. E.
Rogers, G. H. R. Stamford, W. Watson, W. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Stephen, O. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Royle, C. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Sargood, R. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Scott-Elliot, W. Summerskill, Dr. Edith White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Shackleton, E. A. A Swingler, S. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Sharp, Granville Sylvester, G. O. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Shurmer, P. Symonds, A. L. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Silverman, J. (Erdington) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Willis, E.
Simmons, C. J. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Skeffington, A. M. . Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Wise, Major F. J
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Woods, G. S.
Skinnard, F. W. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Yates, V. F.
Smith, C (Colchester) Titterington, M. F Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Tolley, L. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Turner-Samuels, M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Vernon, Maj. W. F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Snow, Capt. J. W. Viant, S. P. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan.