§ Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill)
I beg to move, in page 12, line 38, at the end, to insert:(c) if the landlord has given to the local authority an undertaking in writing that he is prepared to make an agreement with them which will provide for the exchange of tenancies between a tenant of the landlord and a tenant of the local authority in appropriate cases and at the joint request of the tenants.Hon. Members will be aware that Clause 15 is the most important Clause in Part II of the Bill. It gives to landlords the right to increase rents by 40 per cent., provided that they do two things, or that two things obtain: first, that the house is in good and tenable repair and is not unfit for human habitation; and, secondly, that the landlord has carried out work to the value of three-fifths of the rent in the year prior to the service of the notice. I do not propose to examine those two conditions again. We have had arguments and fought tenaciously for our point of view, and we have had to succumb. The effect of this Amendment would be to add a third qualifying condition before the landlord would have the benefit of the increased rent.
I suggest to the House that while it is an important Amendment it is not, and would not be, an onerous one to carry out. It is, in fact, quite simple, and is more dependent on administrative ability than on anything else. I confess to the right hon. Gentleman that some of my hon. Friends wanted to go further in this Amendment. Some felt that it does not go far enough, and they wanted to suggest, as a condition of the increased rent, that the property owners should be required to go to the corporation lists for their tenants, because they felt that this would lead to greater flexibility and better use of the available accommodation.
I shall not follow that argument, but confine myself to the simple proposition 1310 that if landlords are to have the right to increase rents they should make those of their houses which fall vacant at a later date available to tenants of corporation houses, so that if tenants want to make a mutual exchange those houses will be available for such an exchange.
I hope that the Amendment will be considered on its own merits and quite apart from the heated debates and discussions which we have had from time to time in Committee. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in this Amendment there is no intention of obstruction or of delay. Quite briefly and frankly, I think that if we, by statute, are giving the right to landlords to increase their rents by 40 per cent. we have a right to expect them, in return, to observe certain obligations.
This trouble would, I believe, be partly solved by ensuring that the present stock of houses is more fully utilised. The Amendment would make it easier to secure exchanges as between tenants of privately owned property and tenants of corporation houses. That is a difficulty which most of us who listen to our constituents' complaints every week or every month, or who have associations with local authorities, know is very prevalent in the various areas.
Take the example of two tenants—one who is the tenant of a privately factored property and one who is a corporation tenant. The corporation tenant may be a widow in a three-apartment house. She, of her own volition and desire, wishes to go back to a decent type of tenement property, perhaps on a lower floor, and she is told by the corporation that if she can secure a tenant in a private property who is willing to exchange with her, the corporation will put no obstacle in her way; but she must, of course, ensure that the tenant who wishes to come to her house has an application lodged with the corporation for the requisite type of house.
What happens is this. The tenant in the private property, who perhaps has had an application with the corporation for many years, is refused permission by the landlord to accept such an exchange. We have, therefore, the situation of two parties being dissatisfied and inconvenienced, who, because of the landlord's permission being withheld, are not permitted to suit each other and to meet 1311 each other's needs. This type of case can be multiplied by hundreds.
I am informed by those in charge of the Glasgow Corporation that hundreds of such applications are made each year. The corporation tenants are told that if they can get tenants in privately factored property to make an exchange, the corporation will agree. They then go away seeking prospective tenants to exchange with them. Persons in privately tenanted houses who have had applications in since 1944, although not overcrowded to the extent that others are when making their representations, are told that if they can get corporation's properties the deal will be agreed, but always the obstacle is the private factor or owner of the property who will not agree.
I want to say right away that it is not all factors who are pursuing that policy. There are some who have entered into agreements tacitly with the local authority to inform each other of the available accommodation. But this matter is, I think, so important that a little compulsion must be brought upon those factors who are not acting in a public-spirited manner.
The Amendment would provide that where a factor was not prepared to act in that fashion he would not qualify for the increased rent. There have been occasions where the factor or agent has disagreed and where the tenant seeking this privilege has gone behind and beyond him and approached the owner of the property. The owner has then consulted with his agent, but even then has refused and made his decision known to the local authority.
It has been part of the argument of property owners all along that the Rent Restrictions Acts were forcing them either to abandon properties or to sell their properties. My hon. Friends and I hold that that reason no longer obtains because, under this Bill, landlords are to receive a 40 per cent. increase in rent. There is an obligation on them, surely, to try to meet the wishes of their tenants in the matter of exchanges, particularly in respect of exchanges with tenants of corporation houses.
This Amendment is a simple one. It is designed to focus public opinion on what we all recognise to be a problem in our areas. To some small degree it is 1312 working in some areas, but it should be more widespread. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the actual wording is not quite suitable but that he agrees in principle that something should be done, I am sure we can agree that a slight alteration could be made even at a later stage. If he accepts the substance, as most people do, let him make the effective change and we shall be very pleased to consult him on the matter.
There is some support for this suggestion among hon. Members opposite because the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne), in a speech on the Scottish Estimates in 1951, from which I could quote much more but will quote one paragraph only, had this to say when speaking of housing difficulties:In some cases, if exchanges could be allowed, it would materially help to solve the problem, and I would appeal to owners of such property to give priority to public over individual consideration on the question of exchanges, which represent 33 per cent. of the genuine housing problems in my constituency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th July, 1951; c. 2339.]I believe that is the case and some solution of our overall housing problem is to be found in the adoption of a proposal such as this.
I conclude by saying to the right hon. Gentleman that in Denmark, Holland and Norway there are such agreements prevailing now between local and government authorities on a wider scale. There is collaboration and better allocation of what housing accommodation exists. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. It would not cost any money, but it would help to solve some of the problems of our people in Scotland.
§ Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)
I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the concluding sentences of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) about the best use of available houses form the great strength of this Amendment. Whatever else might happen the Secretary of State cannot be unaware of this problem. As my hon. Friend made clear, the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary delivered a speech on this problem, not in the dim and distant past, but since he became Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. I know from experience that a P.P.S. can make his opinion 1313 known to the Minister concerned. I am certain that the present Parliamentary Private Secretary has told the Secretary of State just what this problem is.
In my constituency, and in Edinburgh generally, the corporation has been very helpful in this respect. The corporation has always been willing to make an exchange available if the person who wanted the exchange was an applicant on the list and satisfied all the requirements. We have always argued, and I have found people who would go much further than I would go saying, that a great deal of our housing problems could be got rid of by the best use of the houses which are available.
In this Amendment, we are discussing the possibility of people exchanging houses. I will give a typical case. For a long time a woman in my constituency, who suffers from ill-health, is highly nervous and has one son, has been living in a house which she finds much too large for her needs. She has had her name on the corporation list for many years and the corporation is quite agreeable to her exchanging with a tenant of a corporation house who requires a larger house to meet her needs. The exchange would satisfy two people, but the private landlord says, "Oh, no, I am not going to permit this type of transaction." If he got hold of the house occupied by this woman it would be put up for sale and not for letting.
Surely, in these days, this House ought to be doing its best to protect the rights of these people. As my hon. Friend said, we are not arguing on this Amendment about the change which is to take place in the rent. Rightly or wrongly—we think wrongly—the decision has already been made to increase the rent of these houses by a flat rate of 8s. in the £. Hon. Members from English constituencies probably know that that is the difference between our Bill and their Bill. They have a graduated increase, but in Scotland it is a flat rate of 8s. in the £.
We are not seeking, in this Amendment, even to alter that decision. All we are saying is that if we are to give the landlord the right to increase the rent he should accept a responsibility. We think that by so doing we can satisfy the housing needs of many thousands in our country.
1314 This is a very simple Amendment, it is not complicated in any way. I think it would make a real contribution to our housing needs and prevent disturbances as between landlords and tenants and even between tenants and corporations, because far too often people are inclined to blame corporations for a hold-up. It would make possible the right of people to satisfy their housing needs and make a contribution towards solving our housing problems and difficulties. Because it has been moved by my hon. Friend—and, I hope, seconded—in such a restrained way, I ask the Secretary of State to say that he will accept the Amendment.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Woodburn
I want to add two points in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). This is not an onerous condition. Obviously, it has been drafted so loosely as to be left almost to the good will of the landlord and the corporation to interpret according to common sense. There is certainly a penalty attached to it which would not be enforceable if the landlord were reasonable. As my hon. Friend said, many landlords are reasonable. Perhaps I might give one instance of how this could make a contribution to the saving of houses.
A case came to my attention in Edinburgh, where the woman of a house became a widow. She was still tenant of the house, though her son and daughter were tenants of another house. The son and daughter wanted to take their mother into their house and they had an offer of a corporation house if the person in that house could exchange it for one of the houses in a certain outlying housing estate to get nearer his work. If this exchange had taken place the mother, son and daughter would have been in one dwelling, and another would have been set completely free for the landlord with no tenant in it at all.
The Government, by this Bill, are giving authority to landlords to charge increased rents, and it seems an appropriate moment to give this extra power to the local authority. The power would rest very largely with the local authority and it would be at their discretion and that of the landlord to decide when these exchanges were appropriate.
I would ask the Secretary of State to give this Amendment very sympathetic 1315 consideration. As my hon. Friend said, if the right hon. Gentleman preferred some other wording no objection could be raised to that, and it could be dealt with in another place, but the purpose is clear. It is not onerous on the corporation or on the private landlord and it would mean a greatly appreciated facility in many big towns in connection with the changing of people from one house to another.
§ The Lord Advocate
I quite appreciate the moderation of the speeches that have been made on this Amendment, and I think everyone would agree that there is much to be said for a free interchange on the lines that have been adumbrated and for as much flexibility as possible in the changes of tenancy and occupancy of these houses. But with great respect, I wish to submit that the method that is proposed in this Amendment is not the way to achieve it. Indeed, instead of improving the provisions of the Bill it might well limit the effectiveness of the Clause were this additional, third condition to be incorporated.
Let me briefly state the reasons why I ask the House to take that view. In the first place, the proposed third condition about the undertaking in writing to make an agreement for an exchange is extraneous to the main purpose of this Clause and to Part II of the Bill, because the Clause is designed to enable the landlord to have a sufficient increase of rent to maintain the house in good and tenantable repair. If additional conditions were to be imposed, such as the condition in question, the purpose of the whole Bill might be defeated.
§ The Lord Advocate
In the second place—and this may help the hon. Member to see why—the additional condition might go a long way to defeating the main object of the Clause.
The additional obligation—because it is not left in the Amendment as a matter of arrangement or agreement, but there is an obligation imposed—might well be regarded as a further bar to a landlord making use of the provisions of the Clause in order to improve the house. The net result might well be a deteriora- 1316 tion of the stock of houses in the country, the very object which this Clause is designed to prevent.
The third reason is a reason based upon precedent. During the Committee stage of the 1949 Bill, a Bill which, of course, was sponsored by the then Labour Government, an Amendment was moved to insert a provision that additional houses provided by works of improvement carried out on improvement grants should be let to tenants selected by the local authority from its housing list. It was a proposal very much on the same lines as this proposal although it was not identical with this Amendment. The then Lord Advocate resisted that Amendment, and it did not form part of the Bill when it left this House.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that when this particular Amendment was moved it was supported by most Members on this side of the House and they are now trying to get the same thing enacted.
§ The Lord Advocate
That might well be, but a sufficient number of those Members were not collected to go into the Lobby to carry it and insert it in the Bill.
§ The Lord Advocate
I am talking about the 1949 Bill, when the party opposite where in power and we were not.
§ The Lord Advocate
I am coming to that. Let me repeat what the then Lord Advocate said. He resisted that Amendment which was on the lines of this one. because, he said:… I am convinced that if we were to take the power of selection of tenants away from them,"—that is, the landlords—they would be deterred from taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill to the consequential detriment of the ultimate tenants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 26th May, 1949; c. 2679–80.]1317 That is exactly the position as I see it in regard to this Amendment, and for those reasons I ask the House to reject it.
The Lord Advocate will not misunderstand me when I say that his was a most disappointing reply. It rests upon extraordinary grounds. It is singularly fortunate that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are in the Chair because for the Lord Advocate to tell the House that his first reason for resisting the Amendment is that it is extraneous to the primary purpose of the Bill is ludicrous.
It will be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we had a very long discussion on whether a new Clause which the Secretary of State had put down was inside the Title of the Bill, and we were advised by you that strictly it was not, but that that was not necessary. In your Ruling, it was inside the terms of the Financial Resolution. Nevertheless, the Government found it appropriate or necessary to propose a new Clause which did not fall inside the Title of the Bill, and it seems, therefore, rather odd for them to give us a reason for refusing this Amendment that it is extraneous.
Another reason which the Lord Advocate gives is that the purpose of the Clause might be defeated if the landlord failed to give this undertaking. Why should the landlord or his agent, acting in good faith, refuse to give such an undertaking? Nothing extraordinary is asked. He is not even being asked to part with any money under a Clause where he is sharing in a free gift scheme. He is asked to undertake a responsibility along with the local authority to be reasonable towards these people who are to be hit over the head by this part of the Bill. His third reason is that in a quite different matter a previous occupant of his office—
It was quite a different matter. That Government were not proposing a handout to the landlords. What we are asking here is that the Minister should undertake, in agreement with the local authority, that tenants, both consenting, should be permitted to exchange. The only reason why the Lord Advocate and his colleagues cannot accept this Amendment is because my hon. Friend 1318 the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and his well-known friend Mr. Murray MacGregor have cracked the whip—
Mr. MacGregor said to the Lord Advocate, "If you accept this Amendment we shall be forced to let houses which we want to sell."
The Lord Advocate will not deny that if he accepted this Amendment that would be the only substantial change. The Government have said that they want houses available for letting. They tell us that at every stage as a justification for this Bill. Here is an opportunity to make houses available for letting and to make a contribution in the cheapest possible fashion towards easing the position, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said.
Here is an opportunity to make a contribution towards the unbalance in industrial communities of the use of housing accommodation, about which we all know and to which the Minister of Housing and Local Government drew our attention. I plead with the Secretary of State, if he is in earnest about making more houses available for letting, to look again at this matter. None of us is arguing that a huge contribution is necessary. We are arguing that it is an easy piece of machinery, and we are arguing that since this is the only time that this House will be likely to have any purchase power upon the factors, we should seize the opportunity.
We all know of far-sighted and public-spirited factors who voluntarily co-operate upon such a basis. Many of them go to these towns and look at the augmentation which has been made to housing by public-spirited factors who find no disability in it. Why will not the Secretary of State accept the spirit of this Amendment and make obligatory this practice which has been tested and proved beneficial? There is only one reason why he could not accept the substance of the Amendment. The House knows the reason and, if the right hon. Gentleman refuses even to consider it, we must register our opposition.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)
The speech of the Lord Advocate has brought me to my feet, because although he did not give us a reason why he could not accept this Amendment, the real reason emerged clearly from his speech. To put it in one sentence, it was simply that he considered that the landlords would not like it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman even went so far as to say that the landlords would not like it to such an extent that if this proviso—and it is a proviso—were added to the Bill, many landlords would not operate the Bill and would not accept the 40 per cent. increase in rent. But there are many of us on this side of the House who believe that many tenants would welcome that very much. For all the amount of repairs they are likely to get out of this Bill, many tenants would much prefer that their landlords should contract out of the Bill, and so, from their point of view, that would be an added attraction of this proposed provision.
As my right hon. Friend has said, the Lord Advocate is doing an injustice to some landlords when he takes that view. There are many landlords who, I think, would be willing to make these exchanges. Therefore, the force of this proviso would fall simply on those landlords, perhaps a minority, who are not willing to make these exchanges. If the Government and the Lord Advocate look at this matter again I do not think they will be able to find any valid reasons for avoiding the conclusion that, either by this or a similar method, they would give a considerable benefit to the tenants of Scotland if they made it obligatory on the worst landlords to facilitate exchanges as a condition—surely a minimum condition—of getting the substantial increase in rent which is to be permitted under this Bill.
Every hon. Member here knows how real a problem is the one of exchanges. In so far as we can institute exchanges in a town or in a county constituency, it eases the housing problem considerably. Therefore it is asking very little to say that a Bill which is to give substantial benefits to the landlords should have this extra proviso in it, that as well as having the obligation imposed on them of carrying out a certain amount of repairs—and we fear that the obligation is 1320 a very paper one—there should be this obligation of not unreasonably refusing exchanges.
I hope that the Government will give us a better reason for refusing this Amendment than merely saying that the landlords would not like it. It seems to me to be so stark an appeasement of the landlords that even the Government cannot stand by it. They should accept the principle of the proviso or think of some more respectable reason for refusing it than the one which has been given.
§ Mr. McInnes
The shallow and sham arguments of the Lord Advocate have also brought me to my feet. The Lord Advocate contented himself with indicating that the Amendment was not placed in its proper place in the Bill and would upset the effects of the Clause, which deals with the 40 per cent. increased rental and so on. But the Lord Advocate should treat the House with greater courtesy than he has done on many occasions.
He did not say a single word about the merits or demerits of the Amendment. He used as an illustration that part of the 1949 Act which deals with improvement, but he must realise that there is a tremendous difference between the Bill and that Act. The 1949 Act involved the Government in the payment of 50 per cent. subsidy and involved the landlord in payment of 50 per cent., but there is nothing like that in the Bill. There is the very opposite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) was far too conservative in his estimate of the acuteness of this problem in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and the Joint Under-Secretary of State the right hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Commander Galbraith) realise that in the city which they represent there are thousands of such cases, and the failure of the landlord to co-operate with the local authority creates ill-feeling and irritation among our people.
I have found that that applies equally the other way round, and that often there is a disinclination on the part of the local authority to do the exchange.
§ Mr. McInnes
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has found that, of 1321 course, because the tenant of the private property is not on the corporation list for a house and, therefore, would be jumping the queue. In those circumstances the local authority is not desirous of anyone jumping the queue and the Amendment does not suggest it. The Amendment suggests that where there is a tenant of a local authority house and a tenant of a private factor house and there is mutual agreement an exchange can be made if the private factor house tenant is fairly high up on the local authority list.
If the Lord Advocate finds it difficult in this part of the Bill to give effect to that solution of one essential aspect of the housing problem, would he be prepared to suggest that a new Clause might be inserted to give effect to the Amendment? Surely it imposes nothing on the Government and asks nothing of a monetary nature from the factor and the landlord. I ask the Lord Advocate to treat the Amendment with the courtesy that it deserves and to give the House a good reason why it is impossible to accept such an innocuous Amendment.
§ Mr. Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove)
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) referred to me and to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary as having had experience of this problem. Goodness knows, I have the most bitter and continual experience of the housing problem of Glasgow in general and this exchange problem in particular. There is, I suppose, no part of the city worse housed than portions of Anderston. The difficulty of the tenants in these areas is very acute indeed.
I have examined the Amendment carefully to see whether something along the lines of it was possible, all the more so because we had a similar problem when we were tackling rural housing. We inserted provisions which actually moved along this line, that is to say, anyone having a rural worker's house renovated accepted servitude—in the legal sense of the word—and for a period of 20 years the house was subject to tenancy and could not be used as an independent property. The proprietor could not take possession of it.
I do not want to raise the temperature of the debate, but I must say that I never found hon. and right hon. Members opposite any friendlier towards that 1322 Measure because that provision had been inserted in it. A servitude of 20 years for a rural house was a considerable advantage to the community in question as a quid pro quo for the improved grant that was given. It should be remembered that those houses were to some extent taken out of the Rent Restriction Acts and, as far as I can see, the present Amendment would lead to something of the same kind.
Obviously the words on the Order Paper are impossible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Simply because of the words "appropriate cases." Who is to be the judge of "appropriate"? There would be four parties discussing the matter, and the words of the Amendment would mean that the landlord would have an absolute right of veto.
§ Mr. Woodburn
Obviously it is first left to the reasonableness of both parties—the corporation and the landlord—and the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this proposal gives a certain degree of veto. If the tenant refuses to pay rent on the ground that the landlord has not complied with the condition of being reasonable, I take it that in the long run the sheriff would decide.
§ Mr. Elliot
Look at the tangle of legal difficulties which we are getting into. This matter cannot be dismissed as simply as that.
I have given the matter some consideration because I am most anxious that the problem should be dealt with. I agree that there are people who occupy houses which are larger than they need, who would willingly relinquish them in favour of smaller houses. One of the ways of dealing with the housing problem would be to make the situation fluid instead of it being frozen as it is now, and enable those people to relinquish the larger accommodation and move into smaller and more convenient houses.
This problem is not confined to exchanges between people who are already, fortunate enough to get into a local authority house. The exchange is very often between two people who are in factor houses. The person who has got into a local authority house is a person who has already derived a considerable advantage. People who sometimes come to me in great distress are people who have not had this advantage and, owing 1323 to the enormous congestion of the list in Glasgow, see no possibility of obtaining the advantage. They wish to make a private exchange from factor house to factor house.
I was glad to have the testimony of the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) that there are many decent factors. Mr. Donald Macrae is one of my most continuous correspondents. [An HON. MEMBER: "He always replies?"] Yes, but I find that there are always thousands of worse cases on the list. There are many more highly-poignant applications on the books. A Frenchman said that when one bestows a benefit one makes one ungrateful and nine disappointed persons, and that is also true of houses. When one gets a house there are immediately nine people who come along to say that someone who has no claim whatever has obtained a house. They often think there is some personal spite against themselves.
I want to see a greater number of exchanges, and I certainly think that that is one of the ways in which we can deal with the present situation, but I cannot feel that the words of the Amendment are possible because of the words "appropriate cases." I cannot honestly think they could be interpreted other than as by giving a veto to one of the four parties concerned. In any case, the Amendment deals only with a very limited sector of the problem, the problem of the people who are in a local authority house and who wish to exchange it for a private factor house—and there are not so many of them.
I cannot see the way in which we can deal with this problem other than by the obvious one of increasing the total whole of houses and increasing thereby the desire of the factors to let houses, because people will not pay the price for a private house if they can get into a good local authority house.
§ Mr. McInnes
Would the right hon. Gentleman not concede that in the drafting of the new Clause which it has been suggested might be introduced in another place it would be possible to find suitable words that would enable us to deal with what is, after all, a very acute problem?
§ Mr. Elliot
I should be most willing to examine with a perfectly open mind such a Clause, if it could be drafted. I only say that I do not find myself in a position to vote for this Amendment today. I do not think it is a workable Amendment and it covers only a relatively small sector of the problem with which we are faced. But that a greater fluidity of tenants in tenantable property in good repair is urgently necessary in our city, and that there are many people occupying premises which they would be only too willing to relinquish, and which would thereupon give more accommodation to other people, I frankly concede; and I should be more than willing for us to find some way of dealing with that problem, if we could.
§ Mr. Strachey
Will the right hon. Gentleman join us in pressing the Government to give an undertaking that they will, at any rate, try to find a way, and find appropriate words, to give effect to the purpose of the Amendment before the Bill comes back from another place?
§ Mr. Elliot
Surely, the onus of changing the law is on those desiring to change the law. I have offered to consider in the most sympathetic way any words which could be found to deal with the matter. It may be that it is possible, and it may be that it is impossible, to find words to deal with it. I am only saying that I consider that these words suggested would not work; but I also say that if words could be found which would work, I should be willing to give them my friendliest possible consideration.
But until there is a larger pool of houses, we shall not really find a great improvement in the situation. There is already some improvement in the situation, for we are all aware that the property market has shown a downward trend of recent months, and that the extreme prices being asked for properties are beginning to diminish as a larger supply of accommodation comes on the market. But I know very well that the shortage of housing in Glasgow is still so acute that any and every way of dealing with it ought to be explored. All that I say is that, on the arguments which have been brought forward, I am not satisfied that the proposed Amendment would make an improvement, and would not actually cause a worsening, of the situation before us.
Will the Lord Advocate help us? Is he willing to give the same kind of undertaking as the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) obviously would give if he were on the Front Bench?
§ The Lord Advocate
If I could see how this could be done from a practical point of view, it might be different. Frankly, I cannot see how we can make a practical business of a proposal of this kind.
§ Mr. Rankin
All that we are asking the Lord Advocate is not to find a particular form of words or even to make any decision; we are only asking him to give this matter consideration. Surely he will not tell the House that his terminology is so scanty that no form of words is possible to meet the case, which has been put not only from this side of the House, but which has the support of one with the wide administrative experience and the practical concern of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot).
The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove knows the problem at first-hand, as every one of us knows it, in the great industrial centres of Scotland as well as in the rural areas. I think the right hon. Member agrees with us that something wrong is being done if we do not take the step that in principle, at least, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted and which the Amendment seeks to express. He knows very well that there are in Glasgow 112,000 human beings who are desperately wanting a house.
§ Mr. Rankin
I beg pardon; I said 112,000 individuals. There are 112,000 applications from people desperately wanting a house.
I am certain the right hon. Gentleman agrees with us that it is quite wrong that any person in the city of Glasgow should prevent these people getting houses of some sort. That is what is happening in Glasgow. Property owners are withholding from circulation houses in the city which could contribute to a certain extent towards meeting the needs of these people. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will try to appreciate it 1326 also. If he does so, I am certain that if he wants to find a solution he will find the right words.
§ Mr. Elliot
That is perhaps where we part company. It may not be possible to draft words which will cover this.
§ Mr. Rankin
I am a firm believer in an old truism, to which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse to subscribe, thatWhere there's a will there's a way.and that—[An HON. MEMBER: "Never say die."] I believe the right hon. Gentleman is wishing at this moment that he had thought of "Never Say Die" an hour or two ago.
§ Mr. Rankin
There is another point that we must realise. By the Bill, a great deal is being done for the property owners of Scotland. They are getting £11 million of public money.
§ Mr. Elliot
Really, my hon. colleague in the representation of the city of Glasgow is stretching the debate to a point where it would be impossible for us to come to practical conclusions.
§ Mr. Rankin
Under the Bill, the property owners of Scotland are getting a great deal of monetary consideration.
§ Mr. Rankin
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) says that they do not deserve it. [Interruption.] I am only quoting what he says, not necessarily subscribing to all his sentiments.
Nevertheless, if through the Bill the property owners are getting that consideration, the Bill imposes an obligation upon them to play their part in the social purpose that housing ought to have in our great cities. They are not doing that at present by keeping houses out of circulation, as they are doing. I hope that the Lord Advocate, keeping that in mind, and knowing the strong support which he has from an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland and one of the revered members of the party opposite, will try to find the words in which to express adequately the wish and will of the House.
§ Major Sir Frank Markham (Buckingham)
I have endeavoured to follow this question with an open mind, and it is with great timidity that, as an Englishman, I venture to intervene in what is almost a Scottish debate. But so often we in England, it is said, follow in the path made by Scotland.
One might be tempted to look at this matter in quite a different manner from that already indicated in the course of the debate. I think that all hon. Members agree that what is needed is greater fluidity all round—a greater facility for exchanges of houses to be effected. My first impression is that this Amendment, which, if accepted, will be a very dominant provision in the Bill, will have the effect of limiting exchanges.
It says that no landlord may have any advantage from this Measure unless he gives to the local authority an undertaking in writing that he is prepared to make an agreement with it. That immediately prevents him from making any agreement with an adjacent local authority or with any other—
§ Sir F. Markham
This is where I am drawing a parallel between Scotland and England.
Not only is the landlord prevented from making an agreement with any other local authority, but also this Amendment might limit the chances of fluidity of exchanges. Let us suppose that there is a bad landlord—we all know that there are bad landlords, just as there are bad tenants, and I wish we had none of either who says, "I have to comply with this provision in order to obtain an increase and, therefore, I will intimate to the local authority that I am prepared to make an agreement." That is all he needs to say, that he is prepared to make an agreement. But in fact he may never come to an agreement —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] One knows very well indeed that a person may say that he is willing to negotiate but that the negotiations may never finish. We have had wonderful examples from our Russian friends in that respect over many years.
§ Sir F. Markham
In addition to the opinon expressed by my right hon. Friend 1328 the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) that someone has to decide what are the appropriate cases, my impression is that this is a provision designed to be a paradise for lawyers, and that it will certainly limit fluidity in the exchange of houses. I think, therefore, that it should be resisted.
§ Mr. Willis
It is difficult to see how this Amendment can be a paradise for lawyers when its terms would depend upon the local authority and the landlord coming to an agreement. There are no legal technicalities in this proposed subsection at all.
§ Mr. Elliot
May I say that I was following the point made by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said just now that these things will eventually come to the sheriff, and we cannot have anything more legal than that.
§ Mr. Woodburn
May I appeal to hon. Members to bear in mind that we are working under a voluntary guillotine, and that if hon. Members continue to interrupt, the Government will not be able to finish their business.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Willis
Hon. Members opposite have expressed themselves in favour of trying to do something to facilitate the exchange of houses. There seems to be no disagreement about the desirability of doing that. It is desirable in order to ensure that the present housing accommodation is occupied in a more useful manner, and to make it possible for people to live nearer to their work. That also would assist in connection with transport problems, and there are a number of other reasons which make it desirable.
The right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) says that may be desirable, but that this Amendment does not give us all that we want. But surely it is a good thing to get some of the things we want. I would remind the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove of an answer to a Question given yesterday by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman probably remembers the answer to which I refer. Surely it is better to get something, even if we cannot get everything we want, than to get nothing at all. 1329 This proposed subsection says that in return for what we give to the landlords we expect them to do something for the public. The landlords will get about £3 million or £4 million a year extra out of the people of Scotland. Surely in return for that they would be willing to be rather more co-operative in the future than they have shown themselves to be in the past about arranging transfers with local authorities.
I cannot see where the difficulty arises. The landlord would say, "I am prepared to discuss with the local authority exchanges which may be arranged between my tenants and local authority tenants, or exchanges which may be desirable between those tenants. I am prepared to discuss them, and, in appropriate cases, to facilitate such exchanges." That is all this subsection asks, and for the Lord Advocate to drag in the 1949 Act is really stressing the argument a bit too far.
In any case, many hon. Members on this side of the House who want this subsection included, wanted the Amendment which was not carried in 1949. So that argument is not a good one, and we are being logical about this matter. I suggest to the Lord Advocate that he should look at this matter again. It is an urgent matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman represents an Edinburgh constituency. I am not aware of what he knows of local life in Edinburgh, but this matter concerns thousands of Edinburgh people who try to arrange exchanges and find that they cannot do so.
I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to assist his own constituents to exchange their houses. It is necessary and important that it should be made possible if we are to secure that the best use is made of present housing accommodation. We cannot accept the refusal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We ask him to look at this matter again and at least to undertake to accept the principle embodied in the Amendment, and, if the wording is not good enough, to introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place.
§ Mr. McGovern
When the Secretary of State left the Chamber I thought that probably this matter would have been settled by now, and that he had had a word with Murray MacGregor—who is 1330 really the villain of the piece—to find out the wishes of the landlords in Glasgow about this proposal.
I find great difficulty in appreciating why this Amendment cannot be accepted. I would say to the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and others who base their objections on the wording of the Amendment, that in my experience over the last 24 years always, when questions of this kind are approached in that frame of mind, there exists a desire to oppose, rather than to reconsider the position and try to analyse the Amendment to see whether it is workable.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said that he was not wedded to the words of this Amendment; that if the Government consider that these words would not apply, that they are not the proper words, they can meet the situation by proposing something which will be water-tight or "legal-tight." Therefore, do not let us have any misunderstanding. These objections are merely to any agreement at all being reached.
I have never seen a Bill go through this House in which there was so little compromise or give and take. We have not arrived at the stage of asking in the Amendment for any surrender of the financial dowry which is being given to the landlords. We ask only for some sort of understanding or agreement that would assist in many cases in which two families are involved. Both families may be in a certain amount of distress. One may be in financial distress and the other may be living in overcrowded conditions which cause disturbances of mind and heart.
The result is that it is common for a person to say, "My family have gone now and I am in a type of house which is too dear for me. I know of a house occupied by a lady with a family. She wants to move into a corporation house. The corporation are perfectly willing, because the woman is on the waiting list, but we cannot get the consent of the private owner." I would not ask that a private landlord should have to take any tenant unless there were some guarantee that the tenant was a reasonable type of person who would pay the rent. We are talking now in terms of two families of a decent type. 1331 Some people present the objection that private landlords should not be dealt with in this way, but that they should have a right to select their own tenants without having anybody imposed upon them. Today, however, we live in a world where all kinds of restrictions have to be imposed and all kinds of compromise agreements have to be made. Alternatively, it may be said that a tenant might get into a corporation house from a private house and thus jump the queue; but the person would be on the corporation list.
Not only that, if there is not the surrender of a corporation house, there will be no vacancy at all for a new tenant. This is the case of a changeover of two people which would satisfy two families and give the landlord the opportunity, if he is a decent citizen, of adding to the general satisfaction, convenience, comfort, health and mental stability of the community.
We do not think that this is anything very great for which to ask. We have heard a great deal about the decent landlords—the good and the bad landlords. I have never discovered many of the good landlords. When one suggests something of this kind to them they are the most arrogant types of people that I have ever come across. When one wants to discuss in a reasonable way human problems of this description, they say, "Let the tenant leave the house and we will deal with the house in our own way."
The Government call this "Operation rescue." For the tenants it will be "Operation disaster." The Government claim that this is a rescue Measure. We suggest a method here of rescuing people from difficult circumstances. After all, the Government are pouring into the laps of the landlords a 40 per cent, increase in rent. They are giving them 8s. in the £. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) should be here to tell us about old-age pensioners instead of handing out 40 per cent. to the landlords. The Government are giving the landlords, the people whom they consider to matter, advantages without putting any restrictions upon them.
If the Secretary of State hands out £3 million or £4 million in added rental to landlords who have neglected their duties over the years, it is not too much 1332 to ask that they should act as decent citizens and show some consideration for their fellow citizens who are in distress. This proposal is worth while and that it would do a great deal of good if we could get agreement.
I appeal to the Government to try to meet the situation. If the Government accept the Amendment at least they will have done some little thing, but up to now they have done nothing for the tenant and everything to safeguard the interests of the money-making landlords and racketeers. These vultures who own many of the properties in the City of Glasgow should be in the dock instead of being in the position of getting a 40 per cent, increase in rent. They should be compelled to accept tenants under this method of exchange. It is a reasonable activity which should be encouraged.
§ Mr. Hannan
I should like to express, not only the disappointment, but the protest of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House at the way in which this reasonable Amendment has been received. The speeches from both sides have shown that hon. Members are aware of the problem, and whether the Government like it or not, they will have to face it. Of course, we accept the logic of the situation. The position is that the few good landlords will continue to do this on a voluntary basis; but the landlord who acts in an anti-social manner will be allowed to continue to act with his lack of a sense of public duty. The anti-social landlord will be rewarded by a 40 per cent, increase in rent.
The Lord Advocate gave as his first reason for rejecting the Amendment the fact that the Bill deals with rent increases and not with tenancies. Surely, the two features are inseparable. Whoever heard of a tenant who was not subject to rent and rent increases? I hope that the House will agree that we are right in trying to keep within the rent pool a number of houses which will go outside, because when they become vacant they will be sold. Thus, they will be taken out of the pool of rented houses.
All we ask is that landlords who want to obtain the increase should make the houses which fall vacant available for exchange in respect of a limited number of tenants—only corporation tenants. Some 1333 of my hon. Friends wanted to go further than this and bring in a wider range of tenants and ensure that houses which fell vacant should be offered to tenants on corporation lists. However we thought that it would be more reasonable to deal with the matter in this way.
The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), on many occasions, when speaking for the Conservative Party in opposition, told Ministers of the Labour Government, "You may not be able to accept this form of words. I appreciate the difficulties, but it will be the responsibility of the Minister to help. If the Government agree with the substance of our argument, it should be possible for them to meet us." We have often said that if the spirit of compromise was abroad at Geneva or elsewhere, the agreements that we want would become accomplished facts. We feel so strongly about the Amendment that I have the agreement of my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.
§ The Lord Advocate
With the permission of the House, perhaps I might say a word or two. I assure right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have given the Amendment very careful consideration. We sympathise with the general idea of encouraging the possibility of free exchange but, to borrow the language of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), we cannot make it watertight or "legal-tight." There are practical
§ difficulties in making such an arrangement compulsory.
§ One difficulty is the provision that this is to happen in "appropriate cases." The difficulty from a practical point of view would be to decide when we have "appropriate cases" if the parties concerned—there are four of them—do not agree. The suggestion is that the dispute might go to the sheriff, but what is the criterion upon which the sheriff is to decide whether the circumstances are "appropriate" or not? The proposal would open up a vast field of discussion, difficulty and confusion.
§ Another point which apparently has not occurred to hon. Members is that if we were to impose an obligation upon the landlord of a house to accept a tenant from the local authority, we should have to impose a similar obligation upon the local authority to comply with the exchange in "appropriate circumstances," whatever they were. Therefore, we should impose a very substantial limitation on the discretion of the local authority.
§ For the reasons which I have stated, we do not see our way to make the general principle of exchange, no matter how estimable it may be, compulsory on the lines suggested in the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes. 187: Noes, 218.1335
|Division No. 136.]||AYES||[6.3 p.m.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Clunie, J.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Coldrick, W.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Collick, P. H.||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Corbel, Mrs. Freda||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)|
|Bartley, P.||Cove, W. G.||Greafell, Rt. Hon. D. R.|
|Bence, C. R.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Grey, C. F.|
|Benn, Hon. Wedgwood||Crosland, C. A. R.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Hale, Leslie|
|Blackburn, F.||Daines, P.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Hamilton, W. W.|
|Boardman, H.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Hannan, W.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hargreaves, A.|
|Bowden, H. W.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hastings, S.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Deer, G.||Hayman, F. H.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Delargy, H. J.||Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Dodds, N. N.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Donnelly, D. L.||Holman, P.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Balper)||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Houghton, Douglas|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Edelman, M.||Hoy, J. H.|
|Burke, W. A.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Fernyhough, E.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Fienburgh, W.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Carmichael, J.||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Follick, M.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Champion, A. J.||Foot, M. M.||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)|
|Chapman, W. D.||Forman, J. C.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Mort, D. L.||Sparks, J. A|
|Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Moyle, A.||Steele, T.|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Oliver, G. H||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Orbach, M.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Oswald, T.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Keenan, W.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Kenyon, C.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Pannell, Charles||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Parkin, B. T||Thornton, E.|
|Lawson, G. M.||Pearson, A.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Popplewell, E||Viant, S. P.|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Porter, G.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Lewis, Arthur||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Proctor, W. T||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Logan, D. G.||Pryde, D. J.||Weitzman, D.|
|MacColl J. E.||Rankin, John||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|McGovern, J.||Reeves, J.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|McInnes, J.||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Rhodes, H.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|McLeavy, F.||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Mallelieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Willey, F. T.|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Manuel, A. C.||Ross, William||William, W. R. (Droylesden)|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Willis, E. G.|
|Mason, Roy||Short, E. W.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Shurmer, P. L. E.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Messer, Sir F.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||Yates, V. F.|
|Mikardo, Ian||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Monslow, W.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Morley, R.||Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)||Mr. Arthur Allen and|
|Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)||Mr. John Taylor.|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Deedes, W. F.||Horobin, I. M.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Dodds-Parker, A. B.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence|
|Alport, C. J. M||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA||Howard, Gerald(Cambridgeshire)|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Donner, Sir P. W.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)|
|Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Doughty, C. J. A.||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Drayson, G. B.||Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon R. (Blackburn, W.)||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Duthie, W. S.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Finlay, Graeme||Kerr, H. W.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Fisher, Nigel||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Lambton, Viscount|
|Birch, Nigel||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Langford-Holt, J. A|
|Bishop, F. P.||Fort, R.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Black, C. W.||Foster, John||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Boothby, Sir R. J. G.||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Longden, Gilbert|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Lucas, P. B.(Brentford)|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Glover, D.||McAdden, S. J.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Godber, J. B||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Bullard, D. G.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A||McKibbin, A. J.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Gough, C. F. H.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Gower, H. R.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Graham, Sir Fergus||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Grimond, J.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Carr, Robert||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Channon, H.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)|
|Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Cole, Norman||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Marples, A. E.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Heath, Edward||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Maude, Angus|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L C|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Medticott, Brig. F.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Mellor, Sir John|
|Crouch, R. F.||Holland-Martin, C. J||Molson, A. H E.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hollis, M. C.||Moore, Sir Thomas|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Holt, A. F.||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Hope, Lord John||Neave, Airey|
|Davies Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)|
|Nield, Basil (Chester)||Roper, Sir Harold||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Nugent, G. R. H.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Nutting, Anthony||Russell, R. S.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Turton, R. H.|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)||Scott, R. Donald||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Osborne, C.||Shepherd, William||Vosper, D. F.|
|Page, R. G.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Wade, D. W.|
|Peyton, J. W. W.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Pitman, I. J.||Snadden, W. McN.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Pitt, Miss E. M.||Speir, R. M.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Powell, J. Enoch||Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Stevens, Geoffrey||Walkinson, H. A.|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Profumo, J. D.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Wellwood, W.|
|Raikes, Sir Victor||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Rayner, Brig. R||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Redmayne, M.||Studholme, H. G.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Rees-Davies, W. R||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold||Wills, G.|
|Renton, D. L. M.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Ridsdale, J. E.||Teeling, W.|
|Roberts, Peter (Heeley)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Robertson, Sir David||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Sir Cedric Drewe and|
|Robson-Brown, W.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)||Mr. Oakshott.|