§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 35, line 28, at the end, to insert:
This Amendment is consequent upon the new Clause which has already been incorporated in the Bill. Under Section 57 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, the principle of limiting the liability of trustees is already incorporated. We have now put into a Clause of this Bill a similar provision, and the provision of 1381 the Water (Scotland) Act is no longer necessary. Consequently, that provision is being repealed.
9 & 10 Geo. 6, c 42 The Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. Section fifty-seven so far as relating to house or a building which contains a house or a part of such a building.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 35, line 32, in column 3, at the beginning, to insert:In section eight, the proviso to subsection (3).This Amendment is in the same category as the last one, as it repeals a provision of an Act now superseded by the new Clause limiting the liability of trustees.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 8.27 p.m.
§ Mr. J. Stuart
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We have had long discussions in connection with this Bill, and a long Committee stage, occupying in all 24 sittings. In Committee, I said that the Government would welcome Amendments to improve the Bill, and, as a result of both the Committee stage and the Report stage, I believe that the Bill has been improved, with the help of both sides of the House.
The main discussion concentrated on Part II of the Bill. It was never suggested during our discussions that the preservation of our existing rent-controlled houses was not essential. That being agreed, differences arose over the method of achieving this important objective. All I would say about one of the main differences is that the Government could not favour the imposition on the local authorities of the burdens, financial, administrative and legal, which would have been involved in taking over three-quarters of a million rent-controlled houses.
The Bill proceeds along other lines, which the Government believe to be both workable and right. It enables the houses to remain in existing ownership and offers to landlords the possibility of obtaining rents sufficient to enable them to keep the houses in repair. As hon. Members must now be well aware, this increase in rent cannot be charged until the house is put into repair, and the increase will not continue unless the landlord keeps the house in repair.
The amount of the permitted increase is based upon the recommendations of 1382 the Hutson Committee as to the increased cost of repair, and this is the only increase in respect of which the landlord is permitted to increase the rent. Our Committee discussions concentrated as much on the conditions governing the increase as on the increase itself, and as a result of those discussions in Committee additional safeguards have now been provided in the Bill in the interests of the tenant.
It is generally admitted that, while there are bad landlords, all are not bad; neither are the houses of all the good landlords good houses. Therefore, we provided, on Report stage, a special procedure for the houses which, in the recent past, have been the subject of statutory action by the local authority and may, therefore, be regarded as what we call "suspect" houses. This point is dealt with in the new Clause which was added to the Bill, and in a Schedule.
In regard to this new special class of houses, no landlord can obtain the repairs increase unless he has proved beyond doubt that he is entitled to it; that is to say, that he has carried out the necessary work. As to the future, the Government believe that it may reasonably be expected that a landlord, having claimed the increase, will continue to keep the house in repair, using the increase for that purpose. If he does not, the tenant can obtain a certificate of disrepair.
We believe that as the result of the Bill it will be possible to preserve in repair those houses which are not beyond the landlord's financial ability to put into, and to keep in, repair. Further, we also hope that much greater use will now be made of the improvement grant provisions introduced in the Act of 1949 by the previous Government, and amended by Part I of the Bill.
It may interest the House to know that, since the Committee stage, discussions have taken place with local authorities about this policy. We agreed, as did the Committee, that there must be no discrimination between applicants for grant, and in issuing guidance to local authorities on this point we intend to stress that what really matters is whether a house can be usefully improved. With the shortage of houses continuing, we feel very strongly that no opportunity should 1383 be neglected of bringing houses up to modern standards wherever possible, provided that the houses are structurally worth the expenditure of the money necessary to carry out the work.
In regard to the Clauses of the Bill dealing with slum clearance and patching, there are provisions in Part I, mainly financial, to enable local authorities to render more tolerable for tenants those houses which are now either beyond repair altogether or beyond the landlord's capacity to repair, and which cannot yet be demolished. The House will be glad to know that when my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland discussed with the local authority associations on 2nd April the form of the proposals to be submitted under Clause 1, no difficulty was found in reaching agreement.
There should be no question of any local authority finding the preparation and submission of these proposals an unduly burdensome task. In addition, the local authorities readily undertook to make copies of the proposals available to members of the public who might be interested to see them. This will be done without charge. This meets the point which the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) raised during the earlier proceedings on the Bill.
The next point upon which we concentrated was slum clearance, because patching is in no sense a substitute for it. Patching should be carried out only where the output of new houses does not permit local authorities to rehouse, within a reasonable time, all who are at present living in unsatisfactory houses. Unfortunately, especially in urban areas, many local authorities are faced with this regrettable situation.
It will be possible, under the Bill, to spend quite substantial sums—£150 or more on a house—in making houses more habitable pending demolition. There may also be houses on which the local authority can go further and carry out works to bring them up to modern standards. In certain cases, no doubt, a private owner would be unable to undertake such expenditure, but a local authority might be able to do so, with satisfactory results both to the tenant, who would benefit from the better 1384 accommodation, and also to the local authority, by reducing the lists of those requiring new houses.
I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House now, because we have already had long discussions on the Bill, and because there is not a great deal of time left for the Third Reading. We have spent the best part of two days on Report, in addition to the long Committee stage, to which I referred. But I wish to reiterate that in this Bill the Government have done their best throughout to hold a fair balance.
We knew at the outset that this was going to be a very thorny and difficult problem to tackle, but nevertheless we felt, very soon after taking office, that in addition to getting an accelerated speed of new building, which I am thankful to say has been achieved, it was also vital to ensure that many old houses should be put into a better state of repair, for the very good reason that they must be retained in occupation until such time as new housing is able to meet the requirements of all those in need of houses.
§ Mr. Stuart
I would point out to the hon. Lady that six of those 25 years were during the lifetime of the previous Administration. However, I do not want to go into all that, because I have no wish to take up too much time.
This means that more money must be spent on repair work. We have done our best to ensure, by the safeguards in the Bill, for example by the expenditure test, that the tenant will not be exploited. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the case. We have put in safeguards additional to those which were originally in the Bill. This increased rent was referred to by one right hon. Gentleman opposite, in relation to the English Bill, as a "mouldy turnip." That has not been said in connection with the Bill affecting Scotland.
I suggest that we have held the balance fairly as between the landlord and the tenant, and have endeavoured adequately to safeguard the tenant's position. I believe that as a result of our long discussions we have reached satisfactory 1385 conclusions. At any rate, I can assure the House that the intentions of the Government are sound and honourable—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I repeat that the Government's intentions are sound and honourable, and I trust that, in operation, this Bill will benefit those whom we wish to help in the bad housing areas. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ 8.40 p.m.
It is obvious that I must be brief. I do not reproach the Secretary of State, but I do reproach the Government, of which he is a member that, on an important Bill such as this, we are left with only 1½ hours for the Third Reading. No one can argue that there has been any time wasted on Report. I doubt whether, with a Bill of these dimensions there has ever been comparable progress. When we are left with only 1½ hours for Third Reading the Scottish people will know that this is how their affairs are treated by a Tory Government.
In closing, the right hon. Gentleman said an extraordinary thing. He talked about the houses which, as we all agree, need to be converted and modernised. He said—and I think I am right in saying it was for the first time—that he would have to depend on the local authorities doing that job, which he did not think private enterprise would be able to do. What extraordinary contrast there is! The people who created this problem which we are asked to face have been handled tenderly and rewarded substantially in reply to each one of their pleas. Even at this very late stage we have seen the Government make concessions to the factors and the property owners.
On the other hand, the local authorities, upon whom the right hon. Gentleman tonight tells us he will have to depend for this work of conversion, have been repudiated, pushed aside, and treated more frugally—not to say more shabbily—in this Bill than in any other Scottish Housing Bill. Neither the Scottish people nor the Scottish local authorities will forget that strange contrast; the people who do the damage are to be rewarded; the people who must do the repairs are to be robbed.
The Secretary of State made a special point, as he has done throughout the 1386 whole of the debate, of using the Hutson Report as the justification for this scale of increases. The right hon. Gentleman again makes an assumption, completely unwarranted, which the Government have made at all stages of the Bill. It is that these increases will be applied exclusively to repairs. A committee of greater standing, the Ridley Committee, whose terms of reference were not so carefully and oddly chosen, has reported on this subject. It told us that the previous increases were not applied in the way intended.
It must never be said on the other side that any of my hon. or right hon. Friends have ever denied the need for repairs. Even at the very latest stage we indicated that if the Government would find a form of words by which these increases would be applied exclusively to repairs, we would back them. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, whatever his intentions may be—and we believe them to be good—looking at the experience between the two wars, the intentions of the people who are to operate these increases taken from tenants and in some part from public funds will not be nearly so honourable. Operation Rescue has never in their view been anything but Operation Plunder.
It is true that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have from time to time accepted minor Amendments which we have proposed—Amendments which have rectified anomalies and have created a little more defence for tenants and thus made the Bill more workable, but no substantial Amendment of principle has been accepted from this side of the House. I have grave doubts about the extent to which the Bill will work, and I am sure that if tenants in Scotland decide to exert their rights, the sheriff court will be choked with a queue of appellants which neither the Government nor the court will want. If that happens the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will bear the blame.
The factors and property owners have fared well because the tenants have not been aware of their rights and have been afraid to ascertain what they were. Let us hope that this time—and even the right hon. Gentleman must pay lip service to this hope—the tenants will be aware of their rights and that they will exercise them. Then we shall see this miserable 1387 shabby Bill reduced to the fraud and pretence that it is.
We all hope that the Secretary of State is right about slum clearance, but I doubt it for reasons which I have previously given and which have been given also by hon. Members with much more experience than I have. One would have thought that if the Government were genuinely interested in this matter, more direct and generous methods would have been proposed for this purpose.
We note the undertaking which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to give tonight when he said that the Joint Under-Secretary had had an agreeable meeting with the local authorities and had agreed on the style and shape of the planning devices provided in the Bill. I hope that that really does mean that the Secretary of State will take a back seat, as we have urged him to do from the beginning, and will let these local authorities, who are very anxious to deal with their problems and who are very skilled to do so, so far as their resources permit, deal with these problems without let or hindrance from the Government and with much more assistance than they are at present provided with.
This is a shabby Bill. Where it is straightforward it is probably ineffective. Where it is deceitful it deserves not to succeed. We shall vote against it. The people, no doubt, will vote against it, but I repeat that if the people exercise their rights within the scope of this Bill it will be proved, as we have all along indicated, to be an inoperable as well as an unjust Bill.
§ 8.48 p.m.
§ Mr. Patrick Maitland
Throughout the debate much attention has been paid to the position of tenants in various categories. I wish to detain the House for only a few minutes to refer to one category of tenants before this Bill passes from us.
By Clause 23 we remove some of the protective provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts from tenants of the new town corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. Many of us will have received some correspondence on this subject, and I am particularly concerned to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to take 1388 note of a point that has been made by the tenants' associations, in particular of the new town of East Kilbride. Since the problem could arise elsewhere if the new town policy is continued, there is an important principle involved.
The difficulty that has arisen in the minds of some of these new town tenants, and which is voiced by the tenants associations, is this. They are not quite sure that they are to continue to enjoy security of tenure. They have received assurances from the Development Corporation concerned, and it is not my purpose now to cast any fresh or extra doubt upon the value of those assurances.
I would only say that the White Moss, Westwood and Murray Residents' Associations and the East Kilbride Community Association have all communicated with me to the effect that they would like to have these assurances about continued security of tenure reinforced by an authoritative statement from an elected source. One of the anxieties voiced by them is that they are tenants of an authority which is not elected, and against which they can have no counter-appeal or redress.
§ Mr. McInnes
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that on the first day of the Report stage he voted, along with his colleagues, for the exclusion of the very houses that he is now speaking about from the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, under the new Clause moved by the Government?
§ Mr. Maitland
I am much obliged to the hon. Member for recalling that point. I was able to vote quite happily, knowing the intentions of the Government and believing in the assurance I have had in writing from my right hon. and gallant Friend, which I have passed on to the tenants' association, and with which, so far as they go, I think they are content.
But there is a problem arising out of this matter which may arise in other new towns, and which it is important to bear in mind. The anxiety of tenants derives from the fact that—in East Kilbride, at any rate—they are nearly all tenants of the new town corporation, because they work in the new town, in a factory or some new enterprise which has been started up.
They ask what will happen if they should become redundant or get the 1389 opportunity of working somewhere nearby and want to change their jobs. Will they continue to have security of tenure? My right hon. and gallant Friend has been kind enough to go into this matter with me in correspondence and has given me an assurance that the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association would not act capriciously when the opportunity arose to renew the missives to let.
I want him to confirm that that will be so and that, should there be a ground for complaint by individual tenants, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be accessible to protests and representations about this matter. That is the simple assurance for which I ask.
§ Mr. Maitland
The hon. Member suggests that I can raise the matter in Parliament. It is not the first time that I have raised problems of the new town of East Kilbride in Parliament. None-theless, an important principle is involved. I am confident that my right hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give me the assurance for which my constituents ask.
I wish this Bill God speed and congratulate the Government on their courage and their triumphant boldness in bringing about a great project for uplifting the state of our people.
§ 8.54 p.m.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
This is a rather nauseating Bill, and the support which it has received is just a little more nauseating. What is being talked about now, at a time when we cannot do anything about it, is what we spoke about in Committee, and upon which we received no support from hon. Members opposite. We raised the matter again on the Report stage, and again the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) raised no voice. He voted against it.
The Secretary of State said that the Government's intentions were honourable. There is a well-known road which is paved with good intentions.
§ Mr. Ross
The road to Scottish slumdom has been paved with good intentions. All the safeguards the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Lanark have praised and asked us to accept are the safeguards that have been in other Measures to deal with the same problem. Measures which enabled increases of rents to be charged to stop the slip to slumdom.
I do not doubt their sincerity in saying that the intentions are honourable, but today the right hon. Gentleman is relying, as the Tory Party in 1921 and at other times relied, on the good will and the faith of the landlords, and the landlords have no social responsibility in this respect. They are in housing to make money out of it, and what extra money comes to them by the Bill will not go to the improvement of housing but to the improvement of their own position, just as in the past when they got increased rents the money went to them and not to the improvement of housing.
This is a shocking Bill. It is shocking for the slum owners who are condemned to continue to live in patched up houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Slum dwellers."] It is shocking—
§ Mr. Ross
At least the House has woken up now, as it does not do when the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
This is a shocking Bill for slum dwellers, who are to be condemned to continue to live in patched up houses. It is shocking for the tenants of landlord property, who are faced with a 40 per cent. increase in their rents—8s. in the £. It is a shock to the ratepayers, who themselves, apart from the owners, are to 1391 shoulder the burden of any future increases in the rates, that would have been carried by the landlords.
It is a shock for the Scottish Special Housing Association tenants, of whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lanark belatedly has spoken, who now lose their security of tenure and the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts. It is a shock to any intending tenant of new property because now the sky's the limit so far as rent is concerned. Rent control is completely removed.
This is a strange way for the Government to protect the people. Here, in this shabby Bill, is enshrined the Government's social philosophy, "Let the local authorities come to the rescue of the landlords and take over their liability. When all the profit has been squeezed out of the property, when the property is only a slum, let the local authority take it over. Force it upon the local authority."
Where is the freedom of the local authorities the right hon. and gallant Gentleman used to speak about? They now are to have the distasteful role of owners of slum property, and, what is even more repugnant, the uneconomic task of patching up these slum properties and of keeping in existence pitiful property fit only for destruction. The Bill relieves the private landlords of unprofitable property, and leaves them the profitable property. Moreover, the Government generously ensure that they will be able to pocket a 40 per cent. increase in rent.
The safeguards are of no use. They have been proved failures, and yet they are to be renewed and perpetuated. This is serious indeed for all concerned about the Scottish slums, those vicious places in which people cannot possibly live decent lives. They struggle; they do well; but if any of them fall by the wayside, that is as much the social responsibility of the Government who force through a Bill like this.
I do not think the Bill will work. Consider the burdens which are placed on the tenants in meeting this 40 per cent. increase. The initiative is always with them. The tenant must act. He must have the knowledge, the will, the persistence, to pursue his rights. He must do battle with local authorities, with officials, with lawyers 1392 and with sheriffs. How will old folk react to this kind of treatment? Can we imagine an old couple fighting these battles?
This is a challenge to the sincerity of hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. James Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Particularly the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore).
§ Mr. Ross
Where is the hon. and gallant Gentleman? He was so concerned about the old people and their place in the queue. Tonight, by their votes, hon. Members opposite will be putting the landlord before the old people—8s. in the £ from the old people to the landlord. This is a challenge to their sincerity, and it is no negative action but a positive action which they can take to assist the old people. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is laughing.
§ Mr. Ross
They realise that they are tottering. They realise that their days are numbered and they are hastening the Bill with indecent speed through the House to carry out their pledges to their landlord masters. After tonight the Bill will go to another place. If it gets lost on the way there will be no tears shed in Scotland.
§ 9.2 p.m.
§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that the Government would bear a heavy social responsibility if they passed the Bill. We on this side of the House will be happy to take our share of that responsibility because we believe in the Bill, and we believe it will help those very people about whom the hon. Member was speaking.
We believe that in imposing upon local authorities the obligation to make a survey of all the houses within their district, with a view to deciding which 1393 need reconditioning and repairing, we are taking the first step in restarting the campaign to clear the slums which has been held up by the war and its aftermath.
§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
The hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak later. We are all having to limit our speeches.
We welcome the Bill because it will restart the clearing of the slums and the reclaiming of the old and worn-out houses; and we welcome it because it will make it possible for owners of rented houses and tenements to keep those houses in proper repair.
My right hon. Friend has reminded us that the Committee stage extended to 24 sittings. During that long Committee stage no one claimed, so far as I can remember, that the two-fifths increase in rent imposed by Clause 15 was not justified arithmetically. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it would be impossible for them to do so, in view of the evidence brought before us by the Hutson Committee, by the Girdwood Committee in England and by the expert evidence of such impartial bodies as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, all of which showed the enormous increase in the cost of repairs which has taken place in recent years.
Our discussions turned upon whether rent increases ought to be allowed at all—hon. Members opposite told us constantly that they ought not to be allowed—or whether, as some of us on this side of the House feared, the inducement offered by Clause 15 would be insufficient to achieve what we wanted to achieve, and whether the conditions for securing the repairs increase were so stiff that no more than a few landlords would be able to comply with them. It would be improper and out of order if I were to traverse that ground again. I am sure that all of us hope that the houses will, in fact, be repaired. I am sure we can all join together in hoping that that will come about.
What I think has divided us during the long Committee stage and the subsequent stage of this Bill is the question of priorities. We on this side of the House believe in "operation rescue." We want to see the repairs done. We, therefore, 1394 make that a top priority, accepting the corollary which must stem from it that there must be some increase in rent. If I do not misunderstand the position hon. Members opposite make their top priority the fact that there should be no rent increase at all. That leads them to the impossible position that they want repairs to be done and at the same time are denying the means to carry them out.
I think that it is important that the whole of the rent increases should be available for repairs. That will involve an amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1952. It would not be proper that I should urge that here on this occasion, but I hope that we shall see the necessity of securing that amendment so that the whole of the repair increases shall be available, without deduction of taxation, for the repair of houses.
I am very glad indeed that the Government have introduced, on the Report stage, the Clause which has excluded from the operation of the Rent Acts houses which will be converted or built after this Bill becomes an Act.
§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
Does the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues on that side of the House deny the wisdom of encouraging the building of houses to let—
§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
—the wisdom of converting old houses into modern smaller units which could be let to the people of Scotland. Yet the present position is that if these rebuildings are done, if conversions are made, the rents at which the converted or the constructed houses are let for the first time become the standard rents, and they are subject to rent control, subject only to review by the rent tribunals.
"The uncertainty about the rent that will be fixed by the rent tribunals has undoubtedly led to people who intended to do these conversions either not undertaking the operation at all, or doing them and then offering the houses for sale. One thing is quite certain and that is that the opportunities that will now be available to owners of property in Scotland under this Clause will lead to an increase 1395 in the number of new and converted houses which are offered to let.
The improvement grant is a good thing, and I am glad that the Government were able to introduce a Clause which has allowed the 50 per cent. improvement grant to be obtained, even if the capital cost of the whole work has exceeded £800. In my view, there was no justification for the arrangement under which a landlord was eligible for a 50 per cent. grant if the work in respect of the improvement cost up to £800 but if the cost was any higher there was no grant whatever. Now, there will be the 50 per cent. grant up to a total of £400, and anything above this figure will have to be carried by the landlord.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) expressed his fear in Committee that in many cases local authorities were refusing to sanction improvement grants or were using their powers discriminately and excluding certain classes of applicants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the assurance during the Committee stage that he would confer with local authorities about this, and we must be very glad indeed that he has tonight announced, as the outcome of his conferences, that the local authorities are behind him—
§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
—that there will be no discrimination, and that grants will be available in accordance with the wishes of Parliament and of the Government.
We are all imposing upon ourselves tonight a self-denying ordinance. I will jettison much of what I had to say and content myself by saying that I am delighted with, and proud of, the Government, who have had the moral and political courage to introduce a Measure of this kind at this time.
§ 9.12 p.m.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) ought perhaps, to have declared some kind of interest before he began his speech. We are dealing—let us get at the bare bones of the question—with a 40 per cent. increase in the rents of half the population of 1396 Scotland, affecting, in round figures, 750,000 out of 1,500,000 houses.
We were told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that the average rent of those 750,000 houses was £15, which means that the average rent increase for that number of houses will be £6 a year. That works out at approximately £4½ million a year to the landlords. That is what the Bill does and nothing else. It gives the landlords in Scotland £4½ million a year. Very shortly, the House will be discussing—it will be presented, at any rate—a Supplementary Estimate for about £250,000 for another purpose. We shall see the difference in the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to that Supplementary Estimate and to this £4½ million as a present to the Scottish landlords.
The people who will be affected are, in the main, low wage earners and old—age pensioners—the lower income groups. I said in Committee that not many millionaires live in the houses to which the Bill relates. They are occupied by people on the £4, £5 and £6 a week level and the old-age pensioners. What will happen when the 40 per cent. increase is imposed on them?
I say to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns that we on this side vehemently deny the justice—the arithmetical justice, as he called it—of the two-fifths increase. Assume that the Bill is put into operation. If a landlord is to qualify, he must during the previous 12 months have spent £9 on a house with a rent of £15. Is there anyone who could make a decent house of any of these houses by spending £9 a year on it? It would not get even a coat of paint for £9. But, for spending that £9 in the previous 12 months, the landlord will get £6 a year for all time. That is the present that is being made to the landlords.
Let us have a look at the people who are affected by this provision. The old-age pensioner, if he is in receipt of National Assistance, is getting his rent paid and he will immediately apply to the National Assistance Board for an increase. In other words, we are providing public money via the Assistance Board to private landlords. We are rewarding them with public money for their own neglect. 1397 What about the lower wage earner? We are concerned here with the flat rent, the house with a £15 a year rent about which the Joint Under-Secretary of State spoke. An increase of £6 in the rent is about 2s. 6d. a week, and 2s. 6d. a week is rather a serious matter for a family that is living on £6 a week. Inevitably this will set in trend wage demands. Indeed, the "Daily Mail" mentioned this subject in its leading article on 27th June, 1952. I quote:Most landlords are 'small' men who have put their savings into bricks and mortar. Their reward is to live in poverty while their tenants may be reaping a rich harvest by sub-letting.It then goes on to say:We realise that if rents were raised the consequential increase in the cost-of-living index might lead to another lot of wage demands. But that should not be allowed to perpetuate an injustice.That is the position in which we shall find ourselves. The people living in these 750,000 houses will feel the increase of 40 per cent. They are then either going to apply for public money to counteract that increase, or they will press for more wages. One cannot blame them.
I do not think that the Bill will work. If tenants exercise their rights—and this party will do everything to ensure that they know what their rights are—with the local authorities and the sheriffs' courts, those two bodies will be stultified. But if it does work then we shall be faced with this twist in the inflationary spiral which will not be good for the national economy.
This is a bad Bill; it is dishonest and hypocritical. It tries to solve a problem which, in fact, it will not solve. It is only in line with the rest of the Government's policy, returning something to a small section of the community—the land lords, the brewers, the steel owners, and so on. It is all of one pattern, and the public will not be deceived.
The Government have had a foretaste of the Scottish reaction to this Bill in the local council elections. What happened in those elections will happen to a greater degree in the General Election. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is very loquacious in the House and in Committee on almost every conceivable subject, but he has been singularly silent on this issue. His constituents will, no doubt, be anxious to hear what he thinks about this Bill. Does his silence mean 1398 consent, or does it mean something else? We should be as anxious to know as the people of Kelvingrove.
§ 9.19 p.m.
§ Mr. Elliot
I have no hesitation in replying to the invitation of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton). I am more than glad to be invited to address the House. It was my intention anyhow, but I am now responding to an invitation. We have been silent to a large extent throughout the 24 sittings of the Committee stage because we were unwilling to delay the passage of this Bill, not because of any lack of argument or lack of will to defend the Bill.
The hon. Member for Fife, West, has proved too much. According to him, a much larger rise than what is proposed in the Bill is necessary. He asks what can be done with £9, and he says that it will not put on a coat of paint. What is the remedy of hon. and right hon. Members opposite? It is for the houses to be taken over by the local authorities, in which case a much larger rise than this will be necessary, according to the hon. Gentleman.
If that is the remedy of the hon. Gentleman I shall have great pleasure in going to his constituency of West Fife and explaining it. In Kelvingrove they will much prefer a smaller rise, even if the matter is in the hands of the individual property owners and factors, than a rise of double the amount at the hands of the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman was really arguing against any increase and at the same time arguing for a much larger increase. The emotional appeal is against any increase, the economic argument is for a much greater increase. The hon. Gentleman was distinct from his colleague the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in advancing both of those arguments simultaneously. It was said of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, at a previous sitting, that he was less like the wrath of God than usual; tonight he got back to his original form.
The difficulty in which the House is, and indeed the country is, is one not confined to this country. It is a difficulty with which other European countries are familiar, and in many of which the conditions are even more acute than here. In France, for instance, where they have failed to take the inevitably 1399 unpopular step of increasing the charge for the maintenance of property to correspond with the increase in the cost of maintenance of property, they have gripped themselves in a vice from which it is now proving difficult to escape.
The average age of a house in France is 100 years, and their rate of building in no sense corresponds with ours. Do not let us under-estimate the tremendous things we have done. Everyone knows it is not the work of one party or another. Great steps have been taken. New cities are arising on the confines of many of our old cities. Drive out of Glasgow along our main roads and see the great blocks of property going up which would be a credit to any country. And that rate of construction, I am glad to say, has increased in recent years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am trying not to be controversial. I am doing my best merely to reply to one or two criticisms which have been brought forward.
Do not let us forget, therefore, that this difficulty—the rent problem—applies not only to our country. It has been emphasised by far-sighted men, not of one party or another, and not only in our own country. The strongest challenge to the Government to act on this question has come from Tom Johnston, a former Secretary of State, a man who has carried out a great deal of public work in Scotland, a man who in previous years, at any rate, was honoured and respected by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as on this side of the House.
All the stronger is his challenge to Parliament to deal with the house-property of Scotland which was falling into desuetude and decay by the failure to grapple with the increased cost of keeping it up. That was a very strong challenge, which it was necessary for us to meet. So these steps have been taken. Admittedly they are unpopular. Admittedly they will produce difficulties, legal problems as well as physical problems. But they must be faced if the housing of Scotland is not to decay.
We are already carrying out a great effort in new housing without which nothing else we do would be of the slightest use. The only committee which will eventually bring down house rents is the housewife, the factor, and the 1400 factor of the empty house down the street. The purpose of what we are doing here is to work in conjunction with the enormous effort on new housing which is going on, and to bring the upkeep of the older houses in some respects into harmony with the amount of expenditure required to construct, and subsequently to maintain, new houses.
We know the enormous expense entailed by new housing just now. The cost of a new local authority house in Glasgow is about £2,000 plus. Undoubtedly, one can maintain, or even recondition, an old house, making it a satisfactory house, for a much smaller sum that that.
§ Mr. McGovern
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about repairs, surely he forgets that in 1922 the landlords had a 25 per cent. increase in rent for the purpose of carrying out repairs and that, as the committee has said, they did not spend the money but put it into their own pockets.
§ Mr. Elliot
The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), whose power of argument we all admire, and whose fertility of speech we pant unavailingly to imitate, sometimes spoils an excellent case by almost ridiculous exaggeration. The suggestion that an enormous proportion of the money was simply pocketed by the landlords—
§ Mr. Elliot
I beg hon. Members opposite not to detain me unduly. I wish to give time to other hon. Members who desire to speak.
§ Mr. Elliot
I am glad to have these tributes paid, but I fear that they are said more in jest than in earnest.
The contention that the money, on the whole, has not been spent on repairs is not borne out by reports of committees; and what has been said about high rates of expenditure is justified up to the hilt by the Reports of the Girdwood and Hutson Committees.
§ Mr. Elliot
I do not need to be told by the hon. Member to look at Anderston. I have looked at Anderston for a long time quite successfully.
We want to ensure that the money is spent upon the upkeep of property, which is the purpose of the Bill. The situation is not improved by denunciations such as the hon. Member for Shettleston launches against the providers of house accommodation on every possible occasion, as he did tonight when he talked about vultures. Vultures are not good house-builders. Very few people have ever seen houses either built or maintained by vultures. If the landlords of Scotland corresponded to the hon. Member's description, there would be no city of Glasgow at all. It would be a heap of crumbling ruins.
The hon. Member ought to know better than to run down his native city like that. The city of Glasgow is a great and noble city, but it has certain very black spots, and unless we deal with the problem of the slums, as we propose to do in this Bill, the black spots will extend.
I have not the time to go into the question of "Operation rescue," but we all agree that it is a good thing. The only question is as to how far it will be successful. Well, we must all do our utmost to make it successful. I trust that the legal quibbles which hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently intend launching will not extend to the working of "Operation rescue."
I am, however, dealing frankly and squarely with the most controversial point of the Bill—the difficulty of whether a limited increase in rent should be allowed. The hon. Member for West Fife seemed to assume that every house in Scotland had been kept in a tenantable state of repair by the landlord. He based his case, on every single one of the 750,000 rents being increased, which could not be so unless every single one of the houses had been kept in good repair and had had considerable sums of money spent on it in the last year. That was the concession given by the hon. Member for West Fife to the landlords. I do not go as far as that.
There are many cases in which next to nothing has been spent, and which the rents should not be increased. I would 1402 be happier if I could think that every house in Anderston was in a good state of repair, and that there were going to be increases of rent, rather than that many of the houses there should be, as they are now, crumbling away into ruin. In fact, in some cases, no rent at all is charged, and my constituents, having no rent to pay, are still more vociferous in their complaints. Quite naturally so. They prefer a sound roof over their heads to living in places where the rain comes through on to their beds and they have the shadowy satisfaction of not having to pay any rent.
We are dealing with a problem of great urgency. Admittedly, the Bill in itself will not be the solution to our problem. But, taken in conjunction with the enormous increase in house building, it will help the solution of our problem. It is a step in the right direction. In virtue of that fact, I commend it confidently to the House.
§ 9.33 p.m.
§ Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)
However much we disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) on many of his points of view, we agree with him that the problem which this Bill faces is the greatest single domestic problem with which we in Scotland have to deal. What amazes me is that hon. Members opposite, who have called this "Operation Rescue" and have told us that the Bill will clear the slums, whereas it will perpetuate them, have been remarkable by their absence from the Chamber during this Third Reading debate. Very seldom have there been more than four or five Conservative back benchers from Scotland on the benches opposite to deal with this Bill. That is a good example of just how much serious intention they have with regard to this Bill.
This is a thoroughly bad Bill, and the interesting thing about the very long time that has been spent on it is that the more we have seen of it, despite the occasional concessions which we have wrung from the Government, the worse it has become. The Bill is an interesting exercise in political draftsmanship—a very ingenious exercise—because it conceals the bitter pill of a 40 per cent. increase in rents in the sugar of an expenditure test, and the Government have proceeded to add another sugar coating 1403 to the expenditure test by the part of the Bill which deals with alleged slum clearance.
The fact is, of course that here we have a Bill which is to try to solve the housing problem in Scotland by an increase of 8s. in the £ in rents charged to tenants, without any sort of adequate guarantee as to their protection. I am sure that the people of Scotland will be very interested to learn from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that his only doubt about the Bill is that the 40 per cent. is not really adequate, and that the conditions which surround it seem to him to be too steep.
The Bill will go from here to another place containing such conditions that the Government will be betraying the real interests of hundreds of thousands of tenants of Scotland. I do not attribute that to conscious wickedness on the part of the Government, but to the fact that they are tackling a problem which it is impossible to solve in terms of private enterprise. It is impossible today to meet the housing needs of the people and to make a profit out of doing so. One of the most illuminating asides of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove was his tribute to the great housing schemes which are going up in all our great cities. That is the kind of municipal Socialism that we on this side of the House have been struggling to get for a generation.
The housing problem of the people of this country, whether in the new houses that are going up or in the old houses that we want to maintain in repair, can now be solved only by means of public service principles and by social ownership. That is the fundamental reason why we condemn the Bill and, even at this late stage, would prevent it from coming into operation. I do not think that the people of Scotland realise the full implications of the Bill. They will not do so until they get the notices of increase served upon them. But there is already evidence that they are stirring on this matter.
Some of my hon. Friends led a delegation to the Secretary of State for Scotland representing 2 million Scottish people, from trade unions and from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, as well as from many other organisations associated with 1404 the great Labour movement in Scotland. Many of us in this House have already presented petitions from about 100,000 citizens of Scotland, but that is nothing to the volume of protest that will come from the people of Scotland once the Bill has passed through Parliament and has reached their doorsteps. Then the Government will get the verdict of the people.
We have taken a long time on the Bill. We have done our best to protect the people, and the Government have not treated us very well. It is time that the Bill went as an Act to the people of Scotland to let them know how this Government, because they represent the landlords rather than the tenants of Scotland, have betrayed the people in regard to their basic necessity, shelter.
§ 9.38 p.m.
§ Mr. Woodburn
Comment on the Bill is almost unnecessary, because of the time that has been left to us. When we think of the importance of the Bill to Scotland and the fact that we have had barely a couple of hours to discuss the Third Reading, we realise that that is in itself a commentary on the time-table that has been arranged for so important a Bill.
The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who spoke last from the Government side of the House, did so for a solid quarter of an hour of that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] It is in startling contrast to us. It was Government time. The Guillotine was to fall at 10 o'clock, so the right hon. Gentleman knew that he was speaking in time that was required for other hon. Members. Everybody has exercised self-restraint and discipline in regard to the time-table; only he took as much out of the very limited time available as he could.
He might not have intended to do so, and he may have been provoked, but I call his attention to the fact that he was careful to see that the Government lost no time during the Committee stage. Now, it does not matter. He can occupy some of the time and deprive some hon. Members of the opportunity of speaking. If it had not been discourteous to the House I would have given up time myself for back benchers who wanted to speak. I think that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will agree that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove anticipated his speech and carried out a good deal 1405 of the defence of the Government. I do not suppose that the Minister will be left with a great deal to say after the speech of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove.
This Bill has four parts. Three of them are simply a cover for the fourth part, the 40 per cent, increase. A good deal of the rest is a bluff. The right hon. Gentleman talked to us about repairs. We are not against repairing houses, nor are we against tenants paying for repairs, and I am prepared to say that the tenants are not against paying for repairs. What they object to is paying for repairs and not getting them. Their experience from 1920 onwards is that they have been paying for repairs and that some landlords have simply been putting the money into their pockets. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that was stated in the report of one of the commissions investigating this matter.
I say right away that there are landlords in the country who have kept their property in good repair, and there are tenants who have kept the landlords' property in good repair. I was speaking to one of the most important of these people in Edinburgh, and he told me that he would not be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill to increase rents because his houses are in such a state of repair that he cannot qualify under the Bill.
Our objection is that it is not the people who are doing the repairs who will get the benefit from this Bill, but those who have allowed their houses to sink into slums. The decent landlords, to whom the tenants might be willing to pay an increased rent, will not benefit from this at all. Therefore, good landlords will get very little out of this Bill, because, unless they can spend the money, they will not be able to increase the rents of their houses.
There is no real assurance that the other people will get their houses repaired, because, after a certain qualification, the rent goes up, even if the houses remain slums until they crumble into dust. We are faced with a Bill which is based largely on misrepresentation and false premises. Let us take the basis for repairs. We are told that a committee was set up to decide what increase in costs was necessary to meet the increase in repairs. The Secretary of State asked 1406 that committee to report on the increase in costs between 1939 and after the war. Actually, the costs on the basis of 1920 were not reached until 1943. In other words, the 1939 costs were far below the 1920 rates on which the previous increase was settled.
The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt, also deal with the question of rates in that connection.
§ Mr. Woodburn
The committee in question was not dealing with rates, but with increased costs of building. It was asked to find out what were the increased costs of building between 1939 and after the war instead of the increased costs between 1920 and after the war, or between the rates in 1943, which were the equivalent of 1920, and after the war. We are faced with an argument based on entirely false premises and are asked to agree to a 40 per cent. increase in the cost of repairs.
Throughout this Bill, all that we have maintained is that if there is to be a 40 per cent. increase in repairs, that increase shall be devoted to repairs. Is that unreasonable? When we ask for 40 per cent. to be devoted to repairs, we are actually giving the landlords a bonus, because they are already getting the 25 per cent., which was supposed to be devoted to repairs in 1920, to put into their pockets. Many have put it into their pockets.
If landlords are only to put 40 per cent. into repairs, then they are actually getting a 25 per cent. increase which they are not bound to spend on repairs unless they so desire. Therefore, we thought it quite unreasonable that the Government should come forward with the Bill under the guise that it was going to provide repairs, when, at the same time, they were not prepared to put in the Bill provisions guaranteeing that the extra money would be spent on repairs. There are a great many things about the Bill which we think are quite wrong, and although it may accomplish something we think that it will not accomplish what it set out to do.
The Government have given an increased interest to owners of property who make improvements. No figures were produced to justify that. I have given instances where under the old scheme what I called decent landlords were able, with the consent of the tenants. 1407 to recondition their property in Glasgow, and got the tenants' agreement to an increased rent. They actually had other people clamouring for reorganisation of their houses on the same basis. That proved that the previous scheme could work.
The Government are to give the owners an extra percentage, which, if it leads to a great success we may not, in the long run, grudge. At the moment we think it is another gift to the landlords, unjustified without further evidence. We regard this as a landlords' charter with a few bits of sugar, as my hon. Friend described them, included to sweeten the pill and get people to swallow the 40 per cent. increase.
Many people, thinking that it will result in repairs, will welcome the Bill. If they think that the result of an increase will be a compulsion on the landlords to repair and maintain the property I am certain that they will be disappointed. Instead the recompense and gratitude the Government will suffer from the disillusionment, resulting from their failure to take the steps necessary to ensure that the landlords use the money for the job the Government intended them to do.
The landlords themselves complain that the Bill does not give them the increases which they want. Some quite frankly admit that what they want is not an increase for repairs but an increase to make up the lack of interest on their capital. The increase cannot be devoted to both things. The Government should be quite straight about it. If the increase was meant as an increased return on the investment of capital it Should have been so stated. If it was intended for repairs it should, like a directional subsidy, have been directed towards repairs and, as we asked, put into a repairs fund.
We regard this as a bad Bill and at the end of the debate we intend to register our disapproval in the Division Lobby.
§ 9.48 p.m.
We have had a good-natured and short debate on Third Reading. I must admit that while listening to it I felt—as I have felt throughout the course of the Bill—that there has been something quite unreal about many of the debates we have had. Indeed, I cannot help feeling now and 1408 then that the other side have been some-what shamefaced about much of the opposition they have offered to the Bill.
If I can fit it into a Third Reading speech I will deal later with the hon. Gentleman and his campaign in Edinburgh, East.
What I felt was so unreal was when the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) complained that the Government had only left himself and his hon. Friends one and a half hours for the Third Reading. He knows as well as I that they could have had very much longer had they used to the best advantage the time at their disposal on the previous day.
§ Mr. Manuel
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that the House is becoming disorderly because of the resentment caused by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accusing us on these benches of taking time which we ought not to have taken, while today we have actually kept a House because his own side did not do so?
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has called attention to the disorderly character of the debate. I hope he will assist me in maintaining a higher degree of order.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the disorder was created by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman making his accusations, when the Government had on the Order Paper four new Clauses and a new Schedule.
There is another matter that I found rather unreal about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He used words like "shabby " and "pretence"—big words which he spoke 1409 very loudly indeed, but he spoke them so softly when he was in office that we never heard anything about a method of solving this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) asked me a question in relation to the security of tenure of the tenants in the new towns, and his objection seemed to be that in the meantime there is no elected authority in these new towns. I can only say to him that the new town corporations are highly responsible bodies, and I could not imagine them acting otherwise than in the best interests of the communities over which they have guardianship for the time being.
We had a speech, as usual, from the hon. Gentleman for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The hon. Gentleman is rather inclined to exaggerate on this matter. We heard the usual things from him, as also from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), about slum dwellers being condemned to live in patched-up houses. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is far better for a poor man, and his wife maybe, to live in a patched-up house than to live in one that is not patched-up. He knows perfectly well that there is no possibility of rehousing these people until more housing accommodation is available. The fact is that this Government is doing more to make that housing accommodation available than hon. Members opposite ever did. The hon. Member for Fife, West was well and truly dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who pointed out that nothing like the 750,000 houses could possibly qualify.
Again, the hon. Member for Fife, West made somewhat misleading statements when he said that all that is necessary is for the landlord to spend £9 and then he gets his increase for ever and ever, amen. But he forgets the two other conditions which are attached and which must be maintained. That is what I complain about hon. Members opposite. They go about the country misrepresenting this Bill. That is something of which they ought to be ashamed. The hon. Member for Fife, West made no real constructive criticism of this Bill. He called it a bad Bill and a dishonest Bill, and there were 1410 other words that he used, too. Let the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East tell us about what happened in the local by-election. I have never in my life seen or heard such misrepresentations of the intentions of a Government or the purposes of a Bill as were put forward during that election.
This Bill helps the landlord to maintain his property and helps local authorities to improve and bring up to modern standards houses the owners of which lack the financial resources to do so themselves. It enables local authorities to provide better conditions, for a temporary period, for the tenants of unfit houses, and to exercise greater control over slum property. It prepares the way for slum clearance and redevelopment, and it makes these operations easier for local authorities both financially and otherwise. In my opinion, it gives ample protection to the tenant.
We have had our disputes over the Bill, but I suggest that as it leaves us it is a better Bill than it was when it was introduced. It can do much for the good of the people of Scotland. No other proposal has been put forward on this matter and I suggest that we now forget all these disputes and discussions. I plead with the House to forget these things, to get behind the Bill and make it work, and not endeavour to frustrate it as the hon. Member for Fife, West suggested would be the proper course. As Scotsmen, let us get behind it and make it work, and so benefit the housing conditions of the people.
It is my sincere belief, as it is of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that if the Bill is taken together with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, which we are now considering in Committee, and with the Government's great housing policy, we can, co-operating together, give the people of Scotland better housing conditions than they have ever had before. If hon. Members opposite frustrate the purposes of the Bill they will be to blame for those housing conditions. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 205.1367
|Division No. 137.||AYES||[7.39 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Carmichael, J.||Follick, M.|
|Adams, Richard||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Foot, M. M.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Champion, A. J.||Forman, J. C.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Chapman, W. D.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Chetwynd, G. R||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R||Clunie, J.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Coldrick, W.||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Collick, P. H.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.|
|Bartley, P.||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Grey, C. F.|
|Bence, C. R.||Cove, W. G.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hale, Leslie|
|Blackburn, F.||Crosland, C A. R.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)|
|Boardman, H.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Hamilton, W. W.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Daines, P.||Hannan, W.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hargreaves, A.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Hastings, S.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Hayman, F H.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon George (Belper)||Delargy, H. J.||Holman, P|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Donnelly, D. L||Houghton, Douglas|
|Burke, W. A.||Dugdale, Rt Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Hoy, J. H.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Edelman, M.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Fernyhough, E.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Fienburgh, W||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Morley, R.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Sorensen, R. W|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Mort, D. L||Steele, T.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Moyle, A.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T||Oliver, G. H||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Orbach, M.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Oswald, T.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Paling Will T. (Dewsbury)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Thornton E.|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Pannell, Charles||Timmons, J.|
|Jcnes, T. W. (Merioneth)||Pargiter, G. A.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Keenan, W.||Parker, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Kenyon, C.||Pearson, A.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Key, Rt. Hon C. W||Popplewell, E||Watkins, T. E.|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Porter, G.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Lawson, G. M.||Price, J T. (Westhoughton)||Weitzman, D.|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Proctor, W. T.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Pryde, D. J.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Rankin, John||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Logan, D. G.||Reeves, J.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|MacColl, J. E||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|McInnes, J.||Rhodes, H.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Willey, F. T.|
|McLeavy, F.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Ross, William||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Shackleton, E. A. A||Willis, E. G.|
|Manuel, A. C.||Short, E. W.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Mason, Roy||Shurmer, P. L. E.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Messer, Sir F.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)||Yates, V. F.|
|Mikardo, Ian||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Monslow, W.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)||Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Davidson, Viscountess||Holland-Martin, C. J|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Deedes, W. F.||Hollis, M. C.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Holt, A. F.|
|Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Hope, Lord John|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Donner, Sir P. W.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P|
|Arbuthnot, John||Doughty, C. J. A.||Horobin, I. M.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Drayson, G. B.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Banks, Cot. C.||Drewe, Sir C.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Duthie, W. S.||Hylton-Foster, H. B H.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Birch, Nigel||Finlay, Graeme||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Fisher, Nigel||Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W|
|Black, C. W.||Fleetwood-Hesketh,R. F||Kerby, Capt. H. B.|
|Boothby, Sir R. J. G.||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Kerr, H. W.|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Fort, R.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.|
|Bowen, E. R.||Foster, John||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Po11ok)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C.|
|Braine, B. R.||Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)||Longden, Gilbert|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Lucas, Sir locelyn (Portsmouth, S)|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Glover, D.||McAdden, S. J.|
|Bullard, D. G.||Godber, J. B.||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A||McKibbin, A. J.|
|Burden, F F. A.||Gough, C. F. H.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Gower, H. R.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Campbell, Sir David||Graham, Sir Fergus||Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)|
|Carr, Robert||Grimond, J.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Channon, H.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Cole, Norman||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Marples, A. E.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Heath, Edward||Maude, Angus|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.|
|Crouch, R. F.||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Mellor, Sir John|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Moore, Sir Thomas|
|Nabarro, G. D. N.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Heave, Airey||Roper, Sir Harold||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Nied, Basil (Chester)||Russell, R. S.||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Nugent, G. R. H.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Nutting, Anthony||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas||Turton, R. H.|
|Oakshott, H. D.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Scott, R. Donald||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Vosper, D. F.|
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Osborne, C.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Page, R. G.||Snadden, W. McN.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Soames, Capt. C.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Spearman, A. C. M.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Pitman, I. J.||Speir, R. M.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Pitt, Miss E. M.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Powell, J. Enoch||Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Stevens, G. P.||Wellwood, W.|
|Profumo, J. D.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Raikes, Sir Victor||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Ramsden, J. E.||Stoddart-Scott Col. M.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Wilts, G.|
|Renton, D. L. M.||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Ridsdale, J. E.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Roberts, Peter (Heeley)||Teeling, W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Robertson, Sir David||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)||Mr. Studholme and|
|Robson-Brown, W.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Mr. Redmayne.|
Question put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 138.]||AYES||[9.58 p.m|
|Aitken, W. T.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Osborne, C.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Page, R. G.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Hall, John (Wyoombe)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Hare, Hon. J. H.||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Pitt. Miss E. M.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Powell, J. Enooh|
|Banks, Col. C.||Heath, Edward||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Barber, Anthony||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Profumo, J. D.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Higgs, J. M. C.||Raikes, Sir Viotor|
|Baxter, A. B.||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Ramsden, J. E.|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Boll, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Redmayne, M.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Holland-Martin C. J.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Hollis, M. C.||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Birch, Nigel||Holt, A. F.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hope, Lord John||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Black, C. W.||Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Boothby, Sir R. J. G.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Horobin, I. M.||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Bowen, E. R.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Roper, Sir Leonard|
|Braine, B. R.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Russell, R. S.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Gurney||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Hylton-Foster H. B. H.||Scott, R. Donald|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Iremonger, T. L.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Bufford, D. G.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Burden, F. F. A||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Joynson-Hicks Hon. L. W.||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Campbell, Sir David||Kerby, Capt, H. B.||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Carr, Robert||Kerr, H. W.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Channon, H.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Speir, R. M.|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Legge Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)|
|Cole Norman||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Colsgate, W. A.||Llewellyn, D. T.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col, J. C.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert||Longden, Gilbert||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Low, A. R. W.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Craddock, Beresiord (Spelthorne)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Studholme, H. G.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold|
|Crouch, R. F.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||McAdden, S. J.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Teeling, W.|
|Davidson , Viscountess||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|De la Bère, Sir Rupert||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Deedes, W. F.||McKibbin, A. J.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Donner Sir P. W.||Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon. W.)|
|Doughty C. J. A.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Thornton-Kemsity, Col. C. N.|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Touohe, Sir Gordon|
|Drayson G. B.||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Drewe, Sir C.||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Turton, R. H.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Duncan Capt. J. A. L.||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Marples, A. E.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Elliot, Rt Hon. Hon W. E.||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Maude, Angus||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Mellor, Sir John||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Molson, A. H. E.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Fort, R.||Moore, Sir Thomas||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Webber, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Neave, Airey||Wellwood, W.|
|George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Nioolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Glover, D.||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Godber, J. B.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A||Oakshott, H. D.||Wills, G.|
|Gough, C. F. H.||O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)|
|Gower, H. R.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and|
|Grimond, J.||Orr-Ewing Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)||Mr. Legh.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Hargreaves, A.||Palmer, A. M F.|
|Adams, Richard||Hastings, S.||Pannell, Charles|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Hayman, F. H.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)||Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Parker, J.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Herbison, Miss M||Parkin, B. T|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Holman, P.||Pearson, A.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Houghton, Douglas||Popplewell, E.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Hoy, J. H.||Porter, G.|
|Balfour, A.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bartley, P.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Bence, C. R.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pryde, D. J|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Rankin, John|
|Blackburn, F.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Reeves, J.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Boardman, H.||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Rhodes, H.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hen. A. G||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Jeger, George (Goole)||Ross, William|
|Brockway, A. F.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Shackleton, E. A. A|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Short, E. W.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Keenan, W.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Kenyon, C.||Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W||Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S)|
|Carmichael, J.||King, Dr. H. M.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Lawson, G. M.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Champion, A. J.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Sparks, J. A|
|Chapman, W. D.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Steele, T.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Lever, Harold (Cheatham)||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Clone, J.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Coldrick, W.||Lewis, Arthur||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Collick, P. H.||Lindgren, G. S.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Corbel, Mrs. Freda||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Logan, D. G.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||MacColl, J. E.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||McGovern, J.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||McInnes, J.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Thornton, E.|
|Dairies, P.||McLeavy, F.||Timmons, J.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E)||Wallace, H. W.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Warbey, W. N.|
|Deer, G.||Manuel, A. C.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Donnelly, D. L.||Mason, Roy||Weitzman, D.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Mellish, R. J.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Messer, Sir F.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Edelman, M.||Mikardo, Ian||West, D. G.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Moody, A. S.|
|Fienburgh, W.||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Follick, M.||Morley, R.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Foot, M. M.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N E)|
|Forman, J. C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Wigg George|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Moyle, A.||Willey, F. T.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Mulley, F. W.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P. C||O'Brien, T.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Oldfield, W. H.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Oliver, G. H.||Willis, E. G.|
|Grey, C. F.||Orbach, M.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hale, Leslie||Oswald, T.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W||Paget, R. T.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Marne Valley)||Yates, V. F.|
|Hannan, W.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.|
Bill read a Second time.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.