§ Mr. Peake
I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out Subsection (1).
This Amendment relates to the same matter as the two following Amendments, which we might perhaps discuss at the same time: in line 42, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 43; and in page 6, line 6, leave out from the beginning to the end of the Clause.
This matter was not specifically raised by a previous Amendment during Committee, but on looking at the question my right hon. Friends and I are by no means satisfied that, when the Government have property-under requisition it is fair and proper to obtain for themselves as tenants the protection given by the Rent Restrictions Acts. If these Amendments were embodied in this Clause that protection would no longer be given. Our case, shortly, is that the Rent Restrictions Acts 1925 are devised for the protection of the tenants of small and medium sized houses. They do not apply to houses in excess of a certain rateable value. At the present time the Government, by means of requisitioning orders, are in possession of very large numbers of small and medium-sized houses. We say the time has come when the Government should pay fair value by way of compensation for the continued occupation of this form of property.
Many small houses which are not the subject of tenancies at all at present, and are occupied by their owners, will, under the Clause as drafted, be regarded as rent restricted for the purpose of compensation. There are many houses to which the Rent Restrictions Acts would apply were they to be let, although occupied by the owners at the present time. Take, for example, a man who went to the war in 1939, whose house was let during his absence to a tenant, and who has now returned and regained possession. Although he is an owner-occupier, were the Government now to requisition his house he could not obtain any benefit by way of increased compensation under this Clause. He would be tied down to the rent permitted under the Rent Restrictions Acts, which was, very likely, fixed in the year 1939. We do not think this is a tolerable position, and if the law were amended as we suggest the Government would have much greater inducement to relinquish, as they should do, at the earliest possible moment possession of small and medium sized houses which they hold under requisition. We, therefore, say that these Amendments should be embodied in the Bill.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this principle was discussed previously in Committee. It was discussed fully, and the reason why it could not be accepted was agreed to by hon. Members opposite, because the arguments put forward for its non-acceptance were so reasonable that there could be no doubt that the Government were making the right approach. The reason is that with rent restricted property it would be unfair if the Government had to pay more by way of rental than an ordinary tenant, supposing he came into possession. If the house has not been let before, obviously it is not rent restricted; no standard rent applies, and until the house is let no standard rent 1926 is laid down. Supposing by some chance a Government Department decided to requisition the house of an owner-occupier—it is unlikely; we are not requisitioning such houses if we can help it; we do not want to take occupied houses—then unless a standard rent had previously been fixed, it would not come under this Subsection.
In the case of the returning soldier who has regained possession of his house which has attracted to itself a standard rent, obviously if the house were taken it would come within the Rent Restrictions Acts, and the standard rent would apply. Were the Government to take that house—although they have no desire to do so; and here I gather we are dealing with a completely theoretical case—the standard rent would apply, and the owner would get his rent only according to the formula laid down—on the rateable value, depending on the location, either here, in the Provinces, or in Scotland. We cannot accept this Amendment. In the case of rent restricted property which is requisitioned, it would mean that the ceiling for rental compensation would be 160 per cent. of 1939 values, and we consider that would not be right or proper.
§ Mr. Scollan
I was very surprised at the reply given by the Financial Secretary, that he did not think it fair that the Government should pay more than the ordinary tenant who was getting the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I entirely disagree. The Government ought to pay more. The Rent Restrictions Acts, with the protection given to the tenant, were not enacted because the Government wanted to use the property. That protection was given to ordinary tenants because it was recognised that, while the properties did not increase in value—except scarcity value—the wages and conditions of those who had to use them had to be protected. When such property is taken out of that category altogether and put in the open market for some other purpose, the Government have no right to say to the owner, "Every other property-owner has a right to make something, or to take the market value, but because of your peculiar circumstances you have no right to do so." The Government cannot differentiate between the two. If a Government Department takes over such property, then obviously for everything which the 1927 Department takes over besides the property it pays the market value and compensation accordingly. It is wholly wrong to say that this should be applied in the case of the Government as in the case of the owner-occupier.
§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)
The case which has been made out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) is an overwhelming one. I am sure that my constituents will not be satisfied with the defence the right hon. Gentleman has put up for this Clause. His argument was that this is a purely hypothetical contention, because the Government had no intention of taking over houses. If that were the firm intention of the Government, there would appear to be no purpose in having this Clause at all one way or the other. The reason why we cannot remain satisfied for one second with that assurance, is because the whole policy of the Government on this, as on other matters, has been a shifting policy. My constituents have been relying for two years on the promise of the Home Secretary, which has now proved to be of no effect, and therefore the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention of the Government to take over property cannot have much effect on us. We are not doubting his good faith for one moment, but the whole policy has clearly got so completely out of the control of the Government that we can have no assurance that they will not do these things in a very short time. That being so, we are entitled to ask the Government to deal with this matter on its intrinsic merits, and if they do so, the contention of my right hon. Friend appears to be unanswerable.
§ Mr. Wingfield Digby (Dorset, Western)
I wish to carry the argument of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) one stage further. He rightly pointed out that the object of the Rent Restrictions Acts was to protect the tenant. In the class of cases we are now considering, the houses have not so far come within the Rent Restrictions Acts, because in almost every case they have been occupied by the owners or by friends of the owners. Far from protecting the owner, the Government are now turning him out of his house against his will. It seems that in 1928 these circumstances he is entitled to some kind of special treatment. That is why there should be some differentiation between the rent paid by the Government, as compared with the rent paid by the normal occupier.
§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
It is very easy for the Treasury to get sympathy by asking why the Government should not take advantage of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and why they should be expected to pay more rent than anyone else. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), the object of the Rent Restrictions Acts is to protect the ordinary individual who is unable to acquire a house for himself. The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of any case where this sort of thing has happened, but that does not mean that it will not happen in the near future. The object of this Amendment is to discourage the Government from going into requisitioning wholesale. It is quite obvious that both sides of the Committee are strongly against the Government in this matter, and feel that the Government are using their powers of requisitioning in a very unfair way, especially in the case of the owner-occupier. Under this Clause, the Government can turn a man out of his house, and probably out of his occupation at the same time. It is inflicting a very great hardship on the individual.
Surely, we can ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter again in the sense of common fairness. I have no doubt that he will get his dumb legions to support him in the event of this Amendment being pressed to a Division—that is always done by this Government. The fact remains that the Government have been more strongly condemned from their own side of the Committee than by anyone else. In these circumstances, I think that we can ask the Government to accept the Amendment, and then, if there is any further difficulty, adjustments can be made in another place. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not given way, in view of the fact that the whole argument has been against the Government in this matter.
§ Mr. Assheton (City of London)
Perhaps I may be allowed to put one or two points which will persuade the right hon. Gentleman to modify his views on this 1929 matter. This is a matter of fairness. I have always found that the right hon. Gentleman is extremely fair in his approach to problems, although he is not always able to concede all that he would like. The right hon. Gentleman argues that the Government should be treated in the same way as anyone else, and that if they are to have these properties, they should pay no more rent than the ordinary tenant. I would point out that the local authorities are already exempted as property owners from the Rent Restrictions Acts. A local authority can let property for what they like, and many local authorities have already raised their rents to the great chagrin of landlords in the neighbourhood. If the right hon. Gentleman argues that the Government should be treated in the same way as other people, then I suggest that local authorities should also be treated in the same way as the private landlord.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be unfair for the Government to pay more than a private tenant. I dispute that. Let us take the case of two houses in the same road. The first house has never been let, and is entirely free from the Rent Restrictions Acts. The first letting of that house would in fact establish the standard rent. Let us suppose that house No. 2 was let before the war at, perhaps, a low rental. Along come the local authority, and they pay an entirely different rent for these two houses which are identical in every way—they have the same accommodation, the same situation and the same amenities. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that fair. I understand the pressure that he is under to do his best financially for the Government, but he also represents the interests of the community at large, and it is not fair to continue to maintain the position which he has maintained hitherto.
Let us consider the case of the owner-occupier whose house has been requisitioned; a house which, although owner-occupied, has a standard rent. It may have been let on a previous occasion at a very low rental—possibly some 40 years ago—of 2s. or 3s. a week. The fact that there is an owner-occupier does not make any difference—the standard rent will be 2s. 6d.
§ Mr. Assheton
It was possible to make an increase of 40 per cent. and that was done in some cases, but not in others—but adding 40 per cent, to 2s. 6d. makes little difference. The owner-occupier of that house, if it has not been requisitioned, is free to sell it in the open market, and if he can get some one who wants immediate possession he will get a high market value for it. But if he lets it, he will have to do so for 2s. 6d. plus 40 per cent. It is clear that the owner-occupier will be greatly damnified if his property is requisitioned, and he is only paid 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. a week rent.
I suggest that the Financial Secretary should think about this matter again. It is not so simple as he may have been led to believe. There are all these complications which have been pointed out. In view of the tone of the discussion on both sides of the Committee, it is not possible for me to do anything but urge the House to accept the Amendment. We propose to divide the Committee on the issue, unless the Financial Secretary is able to modify his view.
§ Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)
The Financial Secretary has heard our arguments very reasonably put. Why is it that under this Clause, the Government are trying to give an increase to an owner of a large house of 60 per cent., while the man who owns a small house will not get any increase? It is really one law for the rich and one for the poor. We are used to that from this Government; we have had case after case—we had it on the Purchase Tax. If an owner-occupier is driven out of his house and he has to get another, he will not get one unless he is prepared to pay at least 60 per cent. increase, or a very high market price to obtain vacant possession. The Financial Secretary's argument has been, "Ah, if it was not requisitioned, the man could only get the standard rent." That is not true. He could also get possession by applying to a county court, if he wanted the house for himself. That is far more valuable to any man today than mere rent.
I have a great sympathy for a large number of owner-occupiers who have been driven out of their houses which they were occupying at the date of requisition. Frequently, men in the Services have hoped to come back to a house that was let, and have found on 1931 demobilisation a Government Department in occupation. The Financial Secretary says in effect to them, "We are not going to bother with you. The standard rent is enough for you." I do not think that that is treating this argument with the justice it deserves. I hope that he will at least reconsider the matter and try to see that rent-restricted property really does not affect the matter. What is affecting the matter is the hardship to the individual—a hardship which is as great to a man who owns a large house as to a man who owns a small house. The hardship is even greater on the owner-occupier, and the small house owner-occupier is getting a far lower standard of compensation. I do not think that is just.
Mr. McKie (Galloway)
I intervene to urge the Financial Secretary to say something by way of reply to the three excellent points put to him by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). The Committee is under an obligation to the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) for having brought this discussion to a head. Had it not been for his strong speech of condemnation of the Government, this matter might not have gone against them so badly as it is doing. As a Scottish rural Member, I associate myself with what he has said. My constituency has suffered very considerably from the requisitioning of land. I should be out of Order if I went into that now, but it has suffered and is still suffering from indecision of the Government in making up their mind as to their future policy with regard to requisitioning in general.
I feel very strongly indeed about this point. In my opinion, the Government have gone too far in this Subsection. The right hon. Gentleman held out as a reason why we should not divide on this Subsection that it was not the intention of the Government to make any unfair use of the powers which it will confer upon them if it is allowed to be incorporated in the Bill. That is all very well, but there is no saying what this Government or any succeeding Government may not be driven to do, owing to the exigencies of a future situation. I thought that I saw the right hon. Gentleman look at me as if he agreed with me on that point; at all events, the hon. Member for Western Renfrew agrees with me.
1932 I think that this is excessively mean. I join wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman in that. It is mean of the present Socialist Administration to take advantage of previous legislation, which is not intended to apply to this kind of situation, and to do something which will operate very unfairly, if advantage is taken of this Subsection, on many people. I make the hon. Member for Western Renfrew a present of that; but I am not only thinking of one section of the community as he probably is. I am concerned for all sections. I am, therefore, more fair-minded than he is in that respect. I do not want to see this Subsection operate unfairly with regard to any premises or land that may be requisitioned. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do something about this.
There is one point in particular which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London which certainly deserves an answer. That is: Why are the Government going to do something which the local authorities are not permitted to do? They are not permitted to take advantage of the Rent Restrictions Acts when dealing with tenants, so why should the great Socialist central executive propose to act in this rather mean, underhand and unfair manner. I should have thought it would have been a great opportunity for a Left Wing Socialist executive to show that once in a while, they could do the generous thing and take the open-minded view. Certainly they should do it in this case because it will result in hardship to many people if they do not.
I only wish there were a bigger attendance on the other side of the Committee because I feel sure many more pleas like the one we have heard would be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman from his own supporters. There are only nine Members on the Government Benches at the moment, which is rather disgraceful when a matter affecting so many people in the community is being considered.
We would have had many more speeches like that from the hon. Member for Western Renfrew and the Government would have been placed in an embarrassing position.
§ Mr. Scollan rose—1933
I am not giving way. We are in Committee and the hon. Gentleman can make another speech if he so desires. I hope that when the Division bells ring hon. Members opposite will not troop in a docile manner into the Division Lobby but that they will inquire from the Whips what they are voting about, and then we shall have a strong muster indeed in the Opposition Lobby, with the Government just struggling home. I shall have great pleasure in resisting the right hon. Gentleman by voting for this Amendment.
§ Mr. Walker rose—
§ The Chairman
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to leave the conduct of the Debate to the Chair. He must forgive me for saying that he took up some time and was not himself very relevant.
On a point of Order. With great respect, Major Milner, you said in your wisdom that I had not been relevant, but if I was not relevant, I was not interrupted by you. I feel that I was not any more irrelevant to the issue before the Committee than any other Member who spoke. That comment seems to me to be rather harsh.
§ The Chairman
It is a matter of opinion, and I should be sorry to be unduly harsh, but on future occasions it would, no doubt, be better if I intervened earlier.
§ Mr. Walker
I was saying that this is a matter about which we ought to be very careful in coming to a decision. It is a matter of requisitioning property and turning people out of their homes. It is also a matter of what is the correct and honest compensation that has to be paid. We are all well aware that in these days it is a most serious thing even for a Government to requisition property and to turn what may be an owner-occupier out of his household and leave him with only the hope of certain compensations. We all know how difficult it is when a man loses the tenancy or ownership of his home to find a place in which to live.
1934 I am thinking of the position of the owner-occupier of a house. He may have bought his house years ago in circumstances such as were mentioned by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), but what he paid for it 20 or 30 years ago would not be comparable with the price he would have to pay at the present time.
I remember going into an auction room about 20 years ago when some property was put up for sale. I bought a couple of fine houses for £420. Supposing I was living in one of these houses today and the Government came along and wanted to requisition that property. What compensation would I get? Would I be paid compensation on the basis of what I paid for that property those years ago, or would the compensation be comparable to what I would get for the property if it were vacant and put up for auction at the present moment? These are questions which people are asking. The Government are proposing that the amount of compensation should not exceed the permissible rent. That on the face of it might be perfectly just, but, human nature being what it is, the man who owns land will say "Instead of being worth £400 as it was 25 years ago, it may well be worth £3,000 today, and, therefore, my just claim for compensation is within the area of that exceedingly large amount."
§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman appears not to be dealing with the rental value, which is the subject of this Amendment, but with the capital value.
§ Mr. Walker
I will turn to the rental value. The rental value is the exceedingly large amount that has to be paid for the property. It would be much larger than it was many years ago. At any rate, I feel that whilst there may be a good deal of warranty for the Government to come along and say that they will requisition land and pay compensation with regard to the permissible rent, at the same time they ought to give a little more percentage than the permissible rent of years ago and take into consideration the value of the property as it stands at the present moment. Whilst opposing the Amendment, I ask the Government to look into the matter again and see if they cannot do better than they are proposing to do.
§ Mr. C. Williams
Are the Government not going to reply to the devastating 1935 attack from one of their own supporters? The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) by his own illustration has shown that the Government are trying to do the little man and others as well out of fair compensation. That is most disgraceful on the part of the Government, and it has been exposed by their own supporters. The right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench with a smarmy look is proposing to do nothing about it. I am not surprised, for the right hon. Gentleman in his speech did not show any realisation of the feeling that there is behind this Amendment. He has been attacked by the only two of his supporters who have heard this whole Debate, and the Government have been shown to be absolutely unjust in their outlook.
§ Mr. Walker
I do not want the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to run away with the idea that I attacked the Government. I said in my concluding remarks that I was opposed to the Amendment, but that I hoped the Government would look into it a little bit more closely. I do not consider that that is the attack which the hon. Gentleman is making it out to be.
§ Mr. Williams
I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's interruption, and I certainly do not want him to be on the carpet upstairs. What he really did was make a straightforward statement in his speech of his own experience and as a result of that, although possibly he did not realise it all the time, he was exposing the iniquities of the Government. That having been shown so clearly from the other side of the Committee, there is no alternative but for those hon. Gentlemen to vote in favour of this Amendment.
The hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) who spoke first, should have no difficulty, judging from his speech, in supporting the Amendment, because he showed most clearly and absolutely that the position of the Opposition was just and right, and that up to the present the Government have made no effort whatsoever to attempt to do justice to the people from whom they propose taking away their property. It is grossly unfair. May I put one other point. As far as we know 1936 up to the present there is nothing to prevent the Government taking this property and letting it at a profit. But how are we to know, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer such as we have today, that that is not the intention behind this Clause? I am sorry if I have said one or two hard words about the Financial Secretary, but I hope he will take the advice which has been offered to him and accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. Scollan
If Members opposite will read HANSARD tomorrow they will see that I did not attack the Government. I have attacked this Government when I thought they were wrong, and I will continue to attack Governments, so long as I am here, whenever I think they are wrong. The only point here, however—and it is a crucial one—is that whoever was responsible for this Clause was not justified in differentiating between one class of property-owner and another. The Government are not justified in seeking refuge behind an Act of Parliament which was designed for something entirely different. Whoever was responsible for putting this Clause into the Bill made a grave mistake, and I think the Government should be big enough—I do not know whether the Financial Secretary can take responsibility—to say that they will reconsider the matter in the light of the arguments which have been adduced. If I were in my right hon. Friend's position that is what I would do.
§ Mr. C. Williams
I apologise to the hon. Member if I put him into a difficult position by saying that he attacked the Government. I now realise that he was telling the Committee with his own great personal charm, that the Government were wrong, that he did not like them to be wrong, and that they should take his advice. I feel sure that the Financial Secretary will now accept that advice. After all, there is no reason why the Government Front Bench should always be wrong.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 123.1939
|Division No. 67.]||AYES.||[4.55 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir R||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Neal, H (Clay[...]ross)|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||Nichol, Mrs M. E (Bradford, N.)|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Gibbins, J.||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gibson, C. W||Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Gilzean, A.||Oldfield, W H|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Glanville, J. E (Consett)||Oliver, G H|
|Attewell, H. C.||Grenfell, D R||Orbach, M.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R.||Grey, C F.||Paget, R. T.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Grierson, E.||Pargiter, G A|
|Ayles, W. H.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Parker, J.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs B||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Gunter, R. J||Paton, J. (Norwich)|
|Balfour, A.||Guy, W H.||Perrins, W.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J||Haire, John E (Wycombe)||Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)|
|Barstow, P G||Hale, Leslie||Popplewell, E.|
|Barton, C||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil||Porter, E. (Warrington)|
|Battley, J. R.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R||Price, M. Philips|
|Bechervaise, A. E||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Proctor, W. T|
|Benson, G||Hardy, E. A.||Pryde, D. J|
|Berry, H||Harris, H. Wilson||Ranger, J|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)||Harrison, J.||Rankin, J|
|Binns, J.||Hastings, Dr Somerville||Rees-Williams, D. R|
|Blyton, W. R.||Herbison, Miss M||Reeves, J.|
|Boardman, H.||Hicks, G.||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)||Hobson, C. R||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Holman, P.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Braddock, T (Mitcham)||Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Bramall, E. A.||House, G||Rogers, G. H. R.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Hoy, J.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)|
|Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Royle, C.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)||Scott-Elliot, W|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Segal, Dr. S|
|Bruce, Maj. D W T||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Sharp, Granville|
|Burden, T. W||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Silverman, J (Erdington)|
|Burke, W. A.||Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C|
|Byers, Frank||Janner, B||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Callaghan, James||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Carmichael, James||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)||Snow, J. W.|
|Castle, Mrs B. A.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Sparks, J A|
|Chamberlain, R. A||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Stamford, W|
|Chater, D.||Keenan, W||Stubbs, A E|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Kenyon, C.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Cluse, W. S||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E||Sylvester, G. O|
|Cocks, F. S||Kinley, J.||Symonds, A. L|
|Collick, P||Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Collindridge, F||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Collins, V. J.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)|
|Colman, Miss G. M||Leslie, J. R.||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Comyns, Dr. L||Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Cook, T. F.||Lewis, J. (Bolton)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr G||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Corlett, Dr. J||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cove, W. G.||Longden, F.||Tiffany, S.|
|Crossman, R. H S||Lyne, A. W.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Daines, P.||McAdam, W.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||McGhee, H. G.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||McGovern, J.||Vernon, Maj. W F|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Walker, G. H.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McKinlay, A. S.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Maclean, N. (Govan)||Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Deer, G||McLeavy, F.||Warbey, W. N.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Watson, W. M.|
|Diamond, J.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Dodds, N. N.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||West, D. G.|
|Dumpleton, C W||Mann, Mrs. J.||Westwood, Rt. Hon J.|
|Dye, S.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh, E)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C||Martin, J. H.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Edelman, M||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Evans, A. (Islington, W.)||Medland, H. M.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Mitchison, G R.||Williams, W R (Heston)|
|Ewart, R.||Morley, R.||Willis, E.|
|Fairhurst, F.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Wilmot, Rt. Hon J|
|Farthing, W. J||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Woodburn, A|
|Fernyhough, E.||Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)||Yates, V F|
|Field, Capt. W. J||Moyle, A|
|Forman, J. C.||Murray, J. D||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Nally, W.||Mr. Pearson and|
|Naylor, T. E.||Mr. J. Henderson.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Orr-Ewing, I. L|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)||Haughton, S. G.||Osborne, C.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Head, Brig. A. H.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Pickthorn, K.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Hollis, M. C.||Pitman, I. J.|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Hope, Lord J.||Raikes, H. V.|
|Birch, Nigel||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)|
|Bower, N.||Jarvis, Sir J.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Jennings, R.||Savory, Prof. D. L.|
|Bromley-Davenport, LI.-Col. W||Keeling, E. H.||Scott, Lord W.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lambert, Hon. G||Shephard, S. (Newark)|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)|
|Butcher, H W.||Langford-Holt, J.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Spearman, A. C. M|
|Carson, E.||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Challen, C.||Linstead, H. N.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Channon, H.||Lipson, D. L.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Studholme, H. G.|
|Clarke, Col R. S.||Low, A. R W.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E||MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.||Teeling, William|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)||Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||MacLeod, J.||Thornton-Kemsley, C N.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Digby, S. W||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Touche, G. C.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Turton, R. H.|
|Drewe, C||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Vane, W. M. F|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Marsden, Capt. A.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Eden, Rt Hon. A.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Erroll, F. J.||Mellor, Sir J.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||Morris-Jones, Sir H||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl|
|Gammans, L. D.||Nicholson, G.||York, C.|
|Glyn, Sir R.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Nutting, Anthony||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Grant, Lady||Odey, G. W.||Major Conant and|
|Grimston, R. V.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Brigadier Mackeson.|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.