HC Deb 17 June 1954 vol 528 cc2387-99
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, at the end, to insert: and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that section one of the Act of 1949 (which enables standard rents to be varied by a tribunal in certain circumstances) does not apply to the standard rent of the dwelling-house during the period of the statutory tenancy. This is a very small point. The Amendment is only for clarification. It represents no change of policy. I must confess that when the matter was raised in Committee I said, or certainly one of us said, that the Amendment was unnecessary. On further examination we believe that it is desirable to put the matter without doubt. Since the standard rent under Part I is, in the absence of agreement, determinable by the court, it is unnecessary and undesirable for it to be subject to the jurisdiction of the rent tribunal as well. We always took that view. We thought we had expressed it, but these words put it beyond doubt.

Mr. Janner

I should like an explanation of this. It is not quite as simple as it may appear on the surface. In the event of a landlord and tenant agreeing upon a rent, is the Home Secretary going to leave the tribunal with power to vary the rental and make it a reasonable one? That is what obtains at present under the Rent Acts, and I gather that the policy of the Government is to bring the whole of these houses within the provisions of the Rent Acts.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

Agreement by the parties is one method of settling the rent, and, if they do that, the last thing I want is to encourage anyone to go to a court.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 20, leave out from "shall," to "cease," in line 21.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out from "if," to the second "the," in line 22. and to insert: by the beginning of the period of two months ending with the date of termination specified in. I suggest that we consider with this Amendment my proposed Amendments to page 6, line 37, and to page 7, line 18.

We have discussed the question of the new timing arrangements and these are part of them, although they are connected with a special point. After the discussion we have had and the vote we have taken, I do not think that the House will want me to go into it again, but I am at the disposal of the House if special points are raised.

Sir F. Soskice

Personally, I think the Home Secretary ought to tell us what the extra point here is. Admittedly the previous Amendment has been carried, and this being, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, consequential to the previous Amendment, we should ordinarily be disposed to accept it as merely consequential. However, if there is a further point we think we ought to know what the further point is before we can be expected to agree.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am very glad to explain. I was not seeking to avoid giving an explanation, but, as I indicated, trying only to suit the convenience of the House. The substantive one of the three Amendments meets the difficulty raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee, when they indicated that they wanted to allow more time for negotiations by the parties, that is to allow the landlord to apply to the court at a later date.

9.30 p.m.

One of the speeches which I had in mind was that of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) dealing with the Amendment in which he suggested a period of six months instead of four months. The Government Amendment meets the point in this way: the landlord will be able to apply to the court up to two months before the date of termination specified in his notice. Where he is giving the minimum of six months' notice, the Amendment will make no difference because four months after the service of the notice is the same in point of time as two months before the termination. If he gives a longer notice then the period during which he can go to the court and during which negotiations can be conducted is correspondingly lengthened.

We feel that it is desirable to make the landlord apply at least two months before the date of termination in order that in the ordinary case the county court can settle the matter before that date. We feel that this would be an improvement. It would not be achieved by the Opposition's Amendments, put forward in Committee, suggesting that the landlord should give only two months' notice. The first two of these Amendments are merely incidental to it.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I am perfectly satisfied with the way in which the Government have met the point which I put forward in Committee. Although the Amendments are not in the form which I proposed, they meet the point which I had in mind and have the same objective.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Skeffington

I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, to leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Speaker

Would it be convenient for the hon. Member to take both his Amendments together?

Mr. Skeffington

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was about to suggest that. The second Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (d).

The point of the Amendments is this: in the landlord's notice which proposes a statutory tenancy, four matters are listed upon which it is enacted that there must be agreement between tenant and landlord, otherwise the notice will be ineffective. Paragraph (c) specifies the initial repairs, as defined later in the Bill—whether there are any, and, if so, what they are—which have to be carried out to the dwelling house which is subject to the notice. Paragraph (d) deals with repairs as modified by the provision which follows.

We desire to delete these two paragraphs on two grounds. The first is the substantial point that if our later Amendments on repairs generally were called and carried it would be consequential that there should be no reference to them here. My hon. Friends in Committee and on Second Reading made their position very clear about the additional unfair financial burden which they think will be placed upon the new statutory tenant in the matter of repairs to the house which has been his but which, when he becomes a statutory tenant, is no longer his.

If, despite the examples of acute hardship which we have given and the difficult economic consequences which are placed upon the tenant when he is asked to pay for the initial repairs plus the open market rate, the House decides to fix this burden upon the tenant's shoulders, we suggst that the subject matter of repairs should still not come in this landlord's notice. For on thing, it will make the notice a good deal more complicated and of great length. The average tenant in any case, when notices of this kind are furnished, will probably be upset and certainly greatly worried that the conditions under which he has lived in his home hitherto are about to be completely changed.

It is suggested that this matter should be the subject of separate negotiations at a much later stage. It would be very much better for the landlord and tenant to meet and discuss this matter unofficially before it is the subject matter of any notice. Otherwise he may feel forced to agree rather than risk being taken to court. In any event, he wants to be free to argue about the extent of the repairs really necessary. For all these reasons, we feel it would be logical and fair, in working out this part of the Bill, if the matters the subject of paragraphs (c) and (d) were not incorporated in the notice.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I think it would be convenient if I said a word now. I shall try to make my words on the general question of repairs, which it is difficult to keep out, as short as possible, but it is a matter we have got to discuss. I find some difficulty in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) about repairs being left out of the notice. Whatever view we have ultimately come to, we have all felt that the dilapidations problem is one of the most difficult which arises at this time. We have been trying, in approaching it in our different ways, to see what is the fair thing to do.

The difference between us is the difference of emphasis on the general position of the tenant. I have listened to practically every speech today except for two short absences, and I see, and I have always felt tremendously impressed by, the arguments about family occupation for, say, 100 years where it has gone through two or three generations.

On the other hand, I had to bear in mind the case where the landlord lessor has bought the premises in the expectation of vacant possession and has paid a price that reflected the then existing potentialities of the selling price. I have also been impressed by the corollary to that, of the tenant who has bought the fag end of a lease for a small amount, which was small because of the uncertainty at the end of the lease. That is the difficulty, and I can understand the different emphasis given by different hon. Members, and when I differ from them I differ with regret.

With that background, when one comes to the question of repairs one has to try to hold the balance. Again, of course, there is a great difference between individual Members as well as between the sides of the House on that point. It is important to remember not only the change in the repairing liabilities but one other point which I should like to make, because it is useful that people should remember it.

One improvement in the position of the tenant is that he cannot be turned out for breach of repairing obligations under his ground lease. However serious his failure to repair, he is entitled to remain as a statutory tenant when the ground lease comes to an end. Moreover, he is protected during the term of the ground lease because of Clause 16 and the limitation on enforcement by the landlord.

I emphasise that because I was impressed by what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington said in moving this Amendment, and by what has been said before about the fear in which people are put. I want us to make this clear. This is much more important than a party advantage. We have had, and shall have, many opportunities for urging different points of view. I am not asking for an absence of criticism, but I want it to go out, and I want as many people as possible to realise, that now they cannot be turned out for a breach of repairing obligations. And it is only fair to say that in this respect the Bill goes a good deal further than the majority of the Leasehold Committee.

The second point, which really comes to grips with the Amendment, is that the liability of the tenant for repairs under the ground lease is replaced by the provisions for initial repairs. The House will remember that the position which still obtains is that, in regard to initial repairs, the tenant cannot be asked to pay more than is necessary to bring the house into good repair according to the definition. We left it that it might be less because the landlord might not want to spend so much: the amount can be lower than the maximum where the parties agree. Apart from that agreement, it is good repair subject to the court saying what is good repair according to the general conditions, including the changing conditions of the locality. Again I think it is right that in the majority of cases that would be considerably lower than the standard of repairs under the ground lease.

That is the position and, in view of that, it seems right that it should be put into the notice and brought before the tenants in the way we have suggested in the Bill. I know that hon. and right hon. Members opposite think that we have not gone far enough, but it is a considerable advance. It removes a great deal of the fear of which we have heard so many descriptions in the course of the Bill. Therefore I hope that, on reflection, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will leave the Clause in its present form, saying that while it is not all they want, it is an advance and an improvement of the position of the tenant. It is a good thing that should be stated, that the tenant should realise it, and should then make up his mind on the lines I have suggested.

9.45 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice

Once again I find the Home Secretary's answer neither convincing nor satisfactory and I will try to put succinctly my reasons for expressing that opinion. It seems to me that these two Amendments raise a short specific point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has explained. It is that Clause 7 (2) says that the landlord's notice, in effect, is to come to an end unless certain things have been agreed, including this matter of accrued repairs. The only way in which he can stop it becoming ineffective is by going to court.

Let us consider the position of a tenant whose long lease is coming to an end. The landlord says, "You must agree as to these matters which are set out in paragraphs (c) and (d). If you do not, I shall have to take you to court, and in a short space of time. Are you going to make up your mind now or do you want to be taken to court?" It does not require very much imagination to picture the frame of mind of an ordinary tenant who is threatened with that alternative.

Suppose that the landlord is of a grasping nature, the tenant will either agree to more than he ought to agree in order to avoid proceedings before the court or, supposing he seeks to stand out for what he regards as his due right, he will be taken to court. All that my hon. Friend's Amendment seeks to do is to say that the tenant should not be confronted any more than is inevitable with that alternative and that we should leave out of the Clause those paragraphs dealing with matters which may be difficult to get fixed up to the satisfaction of both parties within four months, thereby lessening the risk of the tenant being dragged to court or agreeing to more than he should agree to.

I have not heard from the Home Secretary any answer to that. If these things are left out of the category of things to be agreed upon, they can be decided upon later. Either they can be agreed upon or, if agreement becomes impossible, the court can decide the matter later. Why put these things in the forefront, with the result that in many cases the tenant will be forced morally into agreeing to a greater burden than he should carry or to being taken prematurely to court?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I am inquiring quite sincerely on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman bases the advantage of making two bites at the cherry here. I have not got his argument on the point.

Sir F. Soskice

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The provisions of subsection (2) state that a landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy shall cease to have effect if, before the expiration of four months from the giving of the notice, certain things have not been agreed upon and, if those things have not been agreed upon, he has failed to take the tenant to court.

If we want to prevent the tenant from being at risk of an overbearing, grasping landlord, those things to be agreed upon obviously should be as few as possible. If one draws up a list of things that must be agreed upon, the tenant who does not want to go to court will do his best to agree and will be very tempted, and indeed will be under very strong pressure, to agree to a burden which is higher than that which he should carry. That is the short point of the Amendment, which seems to me to be unanswerable.

The Home Secretary, with the permission of the Chair, dealt with the rather wider scope of the accrued repayments. Following in his footsteps, I should like to put shortly what seems to us the answer to what he said on a matter which again is of very great importance in the structure of the Bill. I do not like to deal with theoretical possibilities. Let us take a practical case. Take the case, which I assumed in an earlier speech, of a tenant, perhaps getting on in years, who has lived in a house with a ground rent of £5 a year and whose long lease is coming to an end. He will be called upon, and according to the Solicitor-General rightly called upon, to pay a market rent. That market rent, let us assume, is £2 a week for that house in which he lived on a ground rent of £5 a year. He has to pay £2 a week and it is an old property, 100 years or 70 years old, which may easily require £50, £70, £100 or £150 to be spent on repairs. They may well be repairs which under the terms of some obscure, ancient lease made decades ago devolved on the tenant. Very likely he did not know of it, or, if he did, he has forgotten—or perhaps his grandfather knew of it.

He has to pay £150. The Home Secretary says that it is all right, he has security of tenure because Clause 16 prevents the landlord from doing much about it. But Clause 16 does not prevent the landlord from saying to the tenant, "If you do not pay the £100 the court has fixed, I will sue you and get judgment for that £100." The landlord may get that judgment executed and the tenant will not be able to pay the £2 per week market rent which, ex hypothesi, he has been ordered to pay by the county court. Under the terms of the statutory tenancy he can be turned out if he does not pay the £2 per week market rent.

I have said before and I say again—I do not think anything I have said has been displaced by anything said by the Home Secretary—that the security of tenure is illusory. The tenant has to pay much more than he can afford and his efforts to pay the rent may be impeded because there is a judgment against him for the £100 for accrued repairs. If he does not pay the rent he will be turned out because, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, the landlord can get an order because of the non-payment of rent. If he does not succeed in maintaining the payments it will he a final order and in due

course out he will go. I am afraid that I have transgressed the rules of order but I thought that was with your implied permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because the Home Secretary was allowed to deal with this point, and perhaps we have your permission to raise the wider issue of accrued repairs.

Two matters arise on the Amendment: first, the point made by my hon. Friend who moved it and to which we have had no answer that seemed adequate to me; secondly, on the wider issue, we put it with all the emphasis of which we are capable on this side of the House, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires to help tenants in the situation I have described, he cannot consistently in logic leave them in the sort of situation I have described, and that situation will recur over and over again. We shall constantly have cases of tenants living in an old house with a ground rent being suddenly confronted with a financial burden which they cannot conceivably meet.

The inevitable consequence of failure to carry that burden must be that in due course the tenant will be evicted, and therefore the security which the Bill purports to offer him is—as I have said and must go on repeating because it is absolutely fundamental to the understanding of this Bill—a purely illusory security. That is what we object to. The advice I give to my hon. Friends in these circumstances is that we should mark the view I have put forward and which has been put forward by my hon. Friends in similar terms by registering in it the Division Lobby. I hope that they will agree, because it seems to me that this again is one of the fundamental points about which we have received neither a satisfactory proposal nor any satisfactory explanation, or any defence from the Home Secretary.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes. 185.

Division No. 155.] AYES [9.55 p.m
Aitken, W. T. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Alport, C. J. M. Baldwin, A. E. Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Barlow, Sir John Birch, Nigel
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Baxter, Sir Beverley Bishop, F. P.
Arbuthnot, John Beach, Maj. Hicks Black, C. W
Bossom, Sir A. C. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Boyle, Sir Edward Hornsby-Smith., Miss M. P. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney Horobin, I. M. Powell, J. Enoch
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Howard, Gerald (Cambridge) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Browne, Jack (Govan) Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Profumo, J. D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Raikes, Sir Victor
Bullard, D. G. Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J Redmayne, M.
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Burden, F. F. A. Hylton-Foster, H. B. H Remnant, Hon. P.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Iremonger, T. L. Renton, D. L. M.
Campbell, Sir David Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridsdale, J. E.
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Channon, H. Jones, A. (Hall Green) Robson-Brown, W.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Kerby, Capt. H. B Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cole, Norman Kerr, H. W. Roper, Sir Harold
Colegate, W. A. Lambert, Hon. G. Russell, R. S.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Cooper-Key, E. M. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Lindsay, Martin Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Linstead, Sir H. N Shepherd, William
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Crouch, R. F. Low, A. R. W. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Soames, Capt. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Spearman, A. C. M.
Deedes, W. F. McCallum, Major D. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D Macdonald, Sir Peter Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A. Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Drewe, Sir C. McKibbin, A. J. Storey, S.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Duthie, W. S. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Studholme, H. G.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.) Summers, G. S.
Finlay, Graeme MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Teeling, W.
Fort, R. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Foster, John Markham, Major Sir Frank Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Marlowe, A. A. H. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Marples, A. E. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Tilney, John
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Maude, Angus Touche, Sir Gordon
Glover, D. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C Turner, H. F. L.
Godber, J. B. Medlicott, Brig. F. Turton, R. H.
Gough, C. F. H. Mellor, Sir John Vane, W. M. F.
Gower, H. R. Molson, A. H. E. Vaughan-Morgan, J K
Graham, Sir Fergus Moore, Sir Thomas Vosper, D. F.
Grimond, J. Morrison, John (Salisbury) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Nabarro, G. D. N. Wall, Major Patrick
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Neave, Airey Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Nicholls, Harmar Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Nield, Basil (Chester) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Noble, Comdr, A. H. P Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Nugent, G. R. H. Wellwood, W.
Harvey Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield) O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim; N.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Heath, Edward Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Higgs, J. M. C. Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Hendon, N.) Wills, G.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Osborne, C. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hirst, Geoffrey Page, R. G. Wood, Hon. R.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Perkins, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John Peto, Brig. C. H. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Kaberry
NOES
Adams, Richard Brockway, A. F. Deer, G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Dodds, N. N.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Bacon, Miss Alice Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Edelman, M.
Baird, J. Brown, Thomas (Ince) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Bartley, P. Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Bence, C. R. Callaghan, L. J. Fienburgh, W.
Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood Champion, A. J. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Beswick, F. Chetwynd, G. R. Follick, M.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Clunnie, J. Foot, M. M.
Blackburn, F. Coldrick, W. Freeman, John (Watford)
Blenkinsop, A. Collick, P. H. Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Blyton, W. R. Cove, W. G. Gibson, C. W.
Boardman, H. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Daines, P. Greenwood, Anthony
Bowden, H. W. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Grey, C. F.
Bowles, F. G. Davies, Harold (Leek) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Davies Stephen (Merthyr) Hale, Leslie
Hamilton, W. W. Messer, Sir F. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Hannan, W. Mitchison, G. R Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Hargreaves, A. Monslow, W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Moody, A. S. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Hastings, S. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Sorensen, R. W.
Hayman, F. H. Morley, R. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Sparks, J. A.
Holman, P. Mort, D. L. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Holmes, Horace Moyle, A. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Hubbard, T. F. Mulley, F. W. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Nally, W. Sylvester, G. O.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Oldfield, W. H. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oliver, G. H. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Orbach, M. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert(Morpeth)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Oswald, T. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Padley, W. E. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A Paget, R. T. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Janner, B. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Thomson, George(Dundee, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Thornton, E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena Pannell, Charles Turner-Samuels, M.
Johnson, James (Rugby) Pargiter, G. A. Viant, S. P.
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Parker, J. Wallace, H. W.
Jones Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Paton, J. Weitzman, D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Peart, T. F. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Plummer, Sir Leslie Wells, William (Walsall)
Keenan, W. Popplewell, E. West, D. G.
Kenyon, C. Porter, G. Wheeldon, W. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
King, Dr. H. M. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Lawson, G. M. Proctor, W. T. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Rankin, John Wilkins, W. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Reeves, J. Willey, F. T.
Lewis, Arthur Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Williams, David (Neath)
Lindgren, G. S. Rhodes, H. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Logan, D. G. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
MacColl, J. E. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Ross, William Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
McLeavy, F. Royle, C. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mainwaring, W. H. Shackleton, E. A. A. Willis, E. G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley Yates, V. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Short, E. W.
Manuel, A. C. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.
Mason, Roy Skeffington, A. M.

Amendments made: In page 6, line 37, leave out from "made," to "for," in line 38, and insert: by the beginning of the said period of two months.

In line 39, at end, insert: Provided that this subsection shall not have effect if at the end of the period of two months after the service of the landlord's notice the qualifying condition was not fulfilled as respects the tenancy unless the tenant has elected to retain possession.

In page 7, line 3, leave out from "that," to end of line.

In line 5, leave out "paragraph (b) of."

In line 18, leave out from "made," to end of line 21, and insert: earlier than two months after the giving of the landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy, so however that if the tenant has elected to retain possession it may be made at a time not earlier than one month after the giving of the notice; (b) shall not be made later than two months before the date of termination specified in the notice."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]