§ Sir Patrick Spens (Kensington, South)
I beg to move, in page 14, line 24, to leave out paragraph 4, and to insert:4. Where, in relation to any tenancy to which section two of this Act would have applied if the tenancy had not expired before the commencement of this Act any order or judgment has been made or given by a court before the commencement of this Act, and has not been executed, and in the opinion of the court the order or judgment would not have been made or given if at the time thereof this Act had been in operation, the court may on application by the tenant rescind or vary the order or judgment in such manner as the court thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.This Amendment affects the transitional provisions dealing with people who have been tenants, whose leases or tenancies have come to an end and who remain in possession against the will of their landlords, and where the landlords have gone the length of praying to a court and obtaining an order against them. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule provides in those cases not that the order which the landlord has obtained shall not be completely effective or set aside, but only that certain portions of the order shall cease to have effect.
If there is an order to give the landlord possession of the property, or payment of any sum of money equal to the rent that ought to have been paid, it is quite right, so far as the order deals with those matters, that it should not be carried out in view of the lengthened term which is given by the Bill. In our view the proper way of dealing with that matter is that the tenant should go back to the county court and say to the judge, "Since you made the order this Act has been introduced under which a tenant has new rights. What is the order which ought to be made in the new circumstances?" Thus he would get a new and final order dealing with the new position set up by the Bill. That would mean setting aside any order for payment of any rents in arrear 1526 and merely a direction to bring it into account.
In our view, as paragraph 4 of the Schedule is now worded, it does not mean that the existing proceedings will have come to an end. Sooner or later the parties will have to go back again to the county court. Our suggestion is much cheaper and quicker for everybody concerned. It is to go back at once and get the court to make the proper order which it would have made had it known that the Bill was coming into operation. Our Amendment is to substitute what we think is the more effective procedure that the parties should go back to the court. It is as I say quicker and cheaper, and involves no further costs than the arrangement made under paragraph 4.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General
The object of the Amendment, as I understand it from the argument of the hon. and learned Member, is that there should be a right in the court to rescind an order if it is of opinion that, had this Measure been in force, the order was not such as would have been decided upon. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difficulty about it. I quite accept and understand the hon. and learned Member's references to the court being in a sense somewhat decorous, so as not to be abrupt in one's language about a court order. The difficulty is that in every case, as we conceive the situation, the court, if I may follow the language of the Amendment, would be bound to be of the opinion that no order would have been made if the Act had been in force. The Amendment says that the order can be rescinded if, in the opinion of the court, the order or judgment would not have been made or given, if, at the time, this Measure had been in operation. That is the prerequisite to the making of the recission order which the Amendment contemplates.
The difficulty which meets the hon. and learned Gentleman at the outset of his argument is that if you assume a court which is asked to make an order to turn out a tenant, in circumstances in which, if this Act had been already in operation, it could not have been made, the court would have said, "We cannot make an order because this tenant is allowed to remain in." In each case the court would have refused to make the order. To say that the parties should go back and ask 1527 the court to rescind the order is to assume that if this Measure had been in operation the court would have made such an order when, in fact, it would not have done so.
Perhaps I have not understood the course of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but he appears to be proceeding upon a misconception. Although he might have had some slightly different purpose in mind, in point of fact the object which he would achieve by the wording he has chosen for the Amendment is one which has no scope within the Bill. The only result of the Amendment would be that a quite unnecessary procedure would be imposed upon the persons concerned because, ex hypothesi the court would not have made the order, supposing the Act to have been in force. In those circumstances we think that our form of words in paragraph 4 is preferable to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ Sir P. Spens
The form of words in the paragraph only sets aside part of the order so far as it provides for possession, and so forth. Otherwise, it leaves the order of the court standing and leaves the proceedings going on. It means that, sooner or later, the parties have to go back to the court. I entirely accept the view that no court would make an order for possession. Obviously, it could not make an order for the payment of a sum of money for rent as rent, but it would clear up any matters dealt with by the order, on the basis that the Act was in operation. All this will be left standing. We suggest that the proper procedure is to send it back for the county court to make the order which it would have made if the Act had been in operation. In that way everything would be cleared up more quickly and cheaply.
§ Mr. Powell
Would the Solicitor-General direct his attention to the case, which I understand is not uncommon, in which a court gives an order for possession, and suspends it on condition of payment of the current rent and a prescribed proportion of the rent arrears? In the case of a judgment of that sort having been given, would not the effect of paragraph 4, and in particular of subparagraph (a), be to annul the effect of the judgment?
§ The Solicitor-General
Again, I am always receptive of argument, and I see 1528 the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment as he now explains it—as he did before, although I did not quite follow his argument then—and as it has been explained in the argument just addressed to the Committee. As the paragraph at present stands, it is only part of the order which is brought to an end, and any part of the order which relates to payment of costs would, of course, stand. It is certainly arguable, in those circumstances, that it should be enforceable in so far as it relates to costs only but, having listened to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, amplified by the argument to which we have just listened, I should like, without any commitment, to look at it again and to think the matter over before the Report stage.
It is a technical matter, and it may be that some expense could be saved to the parties if they were given an opportunity to go back. I am, however, very far from sure that that is the case and very far from sure that it would not simply mean that applications would be made to the court which would he destined to failure and merely involve the parties in expense unnecessarily. There may be some applications of that sort. Without any commitment, I should like to consider the proposals if the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the Amendment is based on a similar provision in the Rent and Mortgage (Interest Restrictions) Act, 1939, when he comes to consider it?
§ The Solicitor-General
Yes. I would add that rent is payable currently under the Bill as it stands.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, in page 15, line 40, to leave out paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9 is one of the paragraphs relating to the giving of notice. It refers to Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, at which we have already looked and which deals with the giving of notices. As we have already moved, 1529 and the Committee has adopted, a new Clause which brings all those references into one Clause, it follows that we should leave out other specific references in the Bill to the giving of notice. The object of the Amendment is to achieve that purpose.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I want to raise a point which I believe to be of some importance even at this late stage of our discussions—discussions which I think have not been uninteresting even though they have not as yet resulted in the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), justifying his exaggerated statements in the course of the Second Reading debate. The point to which I desire to draw the attention of the Committee is the contrast between Clause 2, as it now stands amended by the Committee, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the First Schedule.
We had some discussion upon this when we were dealing with Clause 2. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would reconsider the matter. I hoped that it would lead to elucidation, because I think there is conflict between the First Schedule and Clause 2 as amended. I hoped that in the long interval that has elapsed the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have put down Amendments to the First Schedule to reconcile the two or to iron out the ambiguities and anomalies which appear to exist.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the wording of paragraph 2 of the Schedule must be read in conjunction with Clause 2 and is entitled to have just as much weight put upon it as Clause 2. The second paragraph is very general in its terms. It says:The continued tenancy shall be treated as having effect, and as having had effect, in substitution for any other tenancy or agreement. …Obviously, before the First Schedule applies, the tenant has to come within Clause 2, but once he comes within the ambit of Clause 2—[Interruption.] I understand that the Minister of Local Government and Planning indicates that 1530 he is here, and that therefore I should deal with this as shortly as I can. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman has a voice which carries. I see that he is waiting now. I can assure him that it will not put me off the argument which I am trying to expound.
Paragraph 2 is very general in its application, and while for paragraph 2 to apply the tenant has to come within the scope of Clause 2, once he is within that scope paragraph 2 obviously operates and attaches. Let us take the case of a tenant who comes within Clause 2, and, as it stands, has secured a renewal of his lease. Once he has done that he is within Clause 2. Then one turns to the First Schedule to see what is to happen to him. One then sees that that agreement has to be set on one side in substitution for any other tenancy or agreement. Is that right?
As I understand it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has endeavoured by paragraph 2 of the Schedule to prevent the rent being demanded twice. It is quite simple and easy to secure that. But whereas under Clause 2 as it stands we are saying that a certain case will come within the Clause where there has been a fresh agreement, paragraph 2 of the First Schedule says that fresh agreement shall be set aside and shall count as nothing. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has pointed out, the wording of the proviso about the payment of the premium conflicts with the expression in paragraph 3:… any penalty, mesne profits or other sum paid to the landlord. …The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had this put to him before, and he and the Attorney-General have given very unsatisfactory explanations. My concern is that if the Bill is left with the Schedule in its present form, the only beneficiaries as a result of this part of the Schedule will be members of the legal profession and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).
§ The Solicitor-General
We certainly had been considering the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) since he spoke about the Schedule, but we really did not think that any change was necessary. The Schedule applies when the tenancy is continued under 1531 Clause 2, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out. It is not continued under Clause 2 when a premium is paid. Once you find the situation in which the continuing tenant is there because he has paid a premium, Part I of the First Schedule has no application.
The point of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich, to which the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has just referred was that the words "penalty, mesne profits or other sum" seem to duplicate the word "premium" and introduce a certain measure of uncertainty. They do not really. The premium is not a penalty within the meaning of this Schedule. If the hon. and learned Member asks what sort of penalty is contemplated, there are Statutes which provide penalties for certain defaults under leases. Mostly they are old statutes, and in particular there is one which is as old as 1730, but they are still part of the law of the land.
There may be a situation in which a lease is so worded that a penalty is payable and paid under that Act. This Schedule simply provides that where there is that situation where there is a penalty under one of those Acts, or there are mesne profits, or some sort of composition in respect of mesne profits, they shall count against the rent which is payable under the continued tenancy.
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really say that the words "other sum paid to the landlord … in respect of the occupation of the property" would not include a premium?
§ The Solicitor-General
Even if they might, it would not matter because, as I have said, when the premium has been paid the Schedule has no application. I am simply explaining what those words refer to. When one gets the situation in which a tenant pays a premium and, because he has done so, continues as a tenant, one can entirely disregard the provisions of this Schedule because it has no application. That is the answer to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
1532 As I have said before, we can cross over the threshold into this Schedule but we must find a situation in which no premium has been paid. Once we find there is no premium and that the tenant continues on the same rent—in other words once we have found the situation in which Clause 2 operates and continues the tenancy—then we look to see what the tenant is paying. We may find that he is paying a penalty under one of these old Acts, though it is unlikely because cases are rare, but one still has to provide for them because they are still part of our legislation. It is, in point of fact, a sum of money which he is required under the Statute to pay because of failure to comply with some provision in the lease.
In order to prevent him having to pay it twice, we say that those sums are to go against the rent which is payable under the extended tenancy. Inasmuch as this only operates where we do not find a premium at the outset, we must have these provisions to prevent the tenant being called upon to pay twice under the extended tenancy the money payments which pass from him to the landlord as consideration for enjoying the tenancy. In those circumstances, having carefully considered the arguments, I do not think that any change is necessary. The wording is perfectly satisfactory as it is, and if I may venture to disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, it will not be the lawyers who would benefit so much as the tenants who continue under the terms of these extended tenancies.
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I cannot agree that the wording of this Schedule is satisfactory. It is putting it far too high. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman found it difficult to make his explanation. I can see the objects which he wants to achieve, but I do not think this Schedule does that. It will lead to confusion. I am not at all sure that his interpretation of the relationship between Clause 2 and this Schedule is the interpretation which will be given by the courts. We have tried all we can in the course of this Committee stage to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider this point and to amend the wording. He has said he has considered our arguments, but he is not prepared to make any alteration to a 1533 Schedule which is badly drawn, badly drafted and is by no means the best feature of a bad Bill.
§ The Solicitor-General
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have ended upon that note. I desire to express my gratitude to him for having considered the wording of the Schedule. I simply meant to say that we had carefully pondered his arguments and, rightly or wrongly, we felt that the wording was
§ satisfactory. I hope he will not think me churlish and that I have not recognised the value of his efforts in trying to improve the wording though not the content of the wording.
§ Question put, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 190.1535
|Division No. 40.]||AYES||17.6 p.m.|
|Adams, H. R.||George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Mikardo, Ian|
|Albu, A. H.||Gibson, C. W.||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Gilzean, A.||Moeran, E. W.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Glanville, James (Consett)||Monslow, W.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Gooch, E. G.||Moody, A. S.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Granville, Edgar (Eye)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Balfour, A.||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Morley, R.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)|
|Bartley, P.||Grey, C. F.||Mort, D. L.|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Moyle, A.|
|Benson, G.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon, James (Llanetly)||Mulley, F. W.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Grimond, J.||Murray, J. D.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Gunter, R. J.||Nally, W.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Boardman, H||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.|
|Booth, A.||Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Padley, W. E.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Hamilton, W. W.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hardy, E. A.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Brockway, A. F||Hargreaves, A.||Pannell, T. C.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Hastings, S.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Hayman, F. H.||Parker, J.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)||Pearson, A.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Herbison, Miss M.||Peart, T. F.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Hobson, C. R.||Popplewell, E.|
|Burke, W. A.||Holman, P.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Burton, Miss E.||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Houghton, D.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hoy, J.||Rees, Mrs. D.|
|Champion, A. J.||Hubbard, T.||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Clunie, J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Rhodes, H.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Richards, R.|
|Colliok, P.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Collindridge, F.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Cook, T. F.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Cooper, John (Deptford)||Janner, B.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)||Jay, D. P. T.||Royle, C.|
|Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Jenkins, R. H.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Daines, P.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Keenan, W.||Slater, J.|
|de Freitas, G.||Kenyon, C.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Deer, G.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Donnelly, D.||Lindgren, G. S.||Steele, T.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Longden, Fred (Small Heath)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J|
|Dye, S.||MacColl, J. E.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McInnes, J.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Edelman, M.||Mack, J. D.||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)|
|Edwards Rt. Hon. Noss (Caerphilly)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||McLeavy, F.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Ewart, R.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Timmons, J.|
|Field, Capt. W. J.||Manuel, A. C.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Finch, H. J.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Tomney, F.|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.||Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.|
|Forman, J. C.||Mellish, R. J.||Vernon, W. F.|
|Fraser. Thomas (Hamilton)||Messer, F.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Weitzman, D.||Wigg, G.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Walls, Percy (Faversham)||Wilkins, W. A.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|West. D. G.||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)||Wise, F. J.|
|Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)||Williams, David (Neath)||Yates, V. F.|
|White. Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)||Mr. Hannan and|
|Mr. Kenneth Robinson.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Hollis, M. C.||Pickthorn, K.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Hope, Lord John||Pitman, I. J.|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Assheton, Rt, Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Beamish, Major Tufton||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Bevins, J. R (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Bishop, F. P||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Black, C. W.||Hylton-Foster, H. B.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Jeffreys, General Sir George||Ross, Sir Ronald (Londonderry)|
|Boothby, R||Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)||Russell, R. S.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D|
|Braine, B. R||Keeling, E. H||Savory, Prof. D. L|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Scott, Donald|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Lambert, Hon. G.||Shepherd, William|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir Walter|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Lindsay, Martin||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Linstead, H. N.||Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)|
|Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Snadden, W McN|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Carson, Hon. E.||Low, A. R. W.||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|Channon, H.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)|
|Clyde, J. L.||McAdden, S. J.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Colegate, A.||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Storey, S.|
|Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)||McKibbin, A.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. D. E||Maclay, Hon John||Studholme, H. G.|
|Crouch, R. F||MacLeod Iain (Enfield, W.)||Summers, G. S.|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|de Chair, Somerset||Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)||Teevan, T. L.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Maitland, Cmdr J. W.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Drewe, C.||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Dunglass, Lord||Maudling R.||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Touche, G. C.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E||Mellor, Sir John||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Molson, A. H. E.||Turton, R. H.|
|Fort, R||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Foster, John||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Monckton, Sir Walter||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Nabarro, G.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Gage, C. H.||Nicholls, Harmar||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)|
|Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Nutting, Anthony||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Oakshott, H. D.||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||Odey, G. W.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Wills, G.|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hay, John||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Heard, Lionel||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||York, C.|
|Heath, Edward||Osborne, C.|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Major Wheatley and Mr. Digby.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Second Schedule agreed to.1536
§ Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended to he considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]