HC Deb 30 March 1955 vol 539 cc441-57
Mr. Key

I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, after " authority " to insert: may subject to such directions, if any, as may be given by the Minister, and ". Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss the next Amendment in page 4, line 3, at the same time, as the two Amendments are related. This again is a point which the Minister said he would accept. It gives discretion to the local authority to take some initiative in getting the owners of property to agree to take over the licensees as statutory tenants. This leaves full power in the hands of the Minister, but it gives local authorities the opportunity of negotiating with the owner concerned to ascertain whether he will be so agreeable.

Mr. Sandys

This also is an agreed Amendment, and I recommend its acceptance.

Mr. A. Evans

I am glad that the Minister has decided to accept these Amendments. I think he will agree that it is most important that this Clause should operate as widely as possible. We all hope that that will be the case, and that as many owners as possible will be encouraged to accept the provisions of the Clause. I hope that the Minister. when administering the Clause, and when scrutinising the proposals of the local authorities, will do everything possible to encourage the local authorities to get the provisions of the Clause adopted in as many instances as possible, for I am convinced that the Clause is the pivot of the Bill, and that if it is widely operated the Bill may achieve some measure of success.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 3, leave out " he may specify " and insert: may be decided by the authority or specified by the Minister, as the case may be."—[Mr, Key.]

Mr. Sandys

I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert:

(5)Any sums payable by a local authority under the last foregoing subsection shall, unless otherwise agreed upon between the authority and landlord, be paid in arrear at intervals of three months; and for the purpose of the enactments relating to income tax, such sums shall be deemed to be received by the landlord as rent paid by the tenant.

The Amendment is tabled partly to meet a point which I undertook to deal with in connection with an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). That is the first half of the Amendment. The second half deals with a point about taxation which formed the subject of the Ways and Means Resolution last night. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mitehison

I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, at the end, to insert:

  1. (6)—(a) A notice of acceptance under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld.
  2. (b) If, at the expiration of the period specified in that behalf no notice of acceptance has been given under subsection (2) of this section, the local authority may at any time within four weeks thereafter apply to the county for an order directing acceptance; and the court, unless satisfied that there is good reason for withholding acceptance, shall make such an order.
  3. (c) For the purposes of this subsection and subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, good reason for withholding acceptance shall be such reason as would justify a refusal to consent to an assignment of a lease made at the rent upon the terms and conditions stated in subsections (3) and (4) of this section 443 and containing a covenant against assignment without the owner's consent, subject to a provision that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld.
  4. (d) On the making as aforesaid of an order directing acceptance, notice of acceptance shall be deemed to have been given (notwithstanding any period specified in the notice of invitation) on the day of the order or on such later day as the court may in the order direct.
  5. (e) Section seventeen of the Rent Act of 1920 (which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules and to give directions and extends the jurisdiction of county courts in respect of proceedings under that Act) shall apply in relation to any proceedings under this subsection as it applies to proceedings under that Act.
I hope that the Amendment will find a similar ready acceptance. We tried, in the Standing Committee, to get the right hon. Gentleman to accept the proposition that these invitations to owners to accept the licensees as statutory tenants should be turned into directions obliging the owners to do so when they received the directions. We failed, and the object of the Amendment is to provide something half-way—perhaps I should say three-quarters of the way—because its effect will be that when the owner receives this invitation he must not unreasonably refuse to accept it. It will put the invitation in the same position as a request to an owner to accept an assignment of a lease under the very common provision that his consent is required but shall not be unreasonably withheld.

The Amendment raises the whole question, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), of whether the Clause will work at all and, if it fails to work, in which direction it ought to fail to work. At present, the matter is entirely in the hands of the owner. There is no obligation whatever on him to accept the invitation about which we have been talking, there is no obligation whatever on him to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, and, if it suits his pocket better to turn the licensee out, he is fully entitled to do so, and is not in the least bound to accept him as a statutory tenant.

6.45 p.m.

My right hon. Friends, hon. Friends and I say without hesitation that these licensees are, on the whole, poor people, many of whom suffered severely during the war. They are living in houses where many of them have been for a considerable time, and which have become their homes. For that purpose it does not matter whether, legally, they are licensees or statutory tenants. From the human point of view those houses are their homes, and it is now proposed, because of the legal, the statutory, distinction between the position of a licensee and the position of a tenant, to turn them out—and to do it solely because of that distinction and because the owner is not willing to accept them as statutory tenants.

Look at the position of the owner. He may require the house to live in himself, and there is provision in another part of the Bill for him to get the house in that case, always subject to a weighing of hardship on the one side and the other. He can do that by going to court under provisions which will be broadly similar to those in the Rent Acts. He is, therefore, all right in that case.

But only a small number of owners, we are told, desire to live in the houses themselves or are suffering any hardship at all, except financial hardship. It is purely a financial question. Are we to allow an owner, because it suits his pocket better, possibly by quite a small sum, to turn out a man and his family who have been living for a long time in the house and have come to regard it and treat it as their home; or are we to say that this is not the kind of thing which ought to be allowed when the only distinction between the occupant of the house and the occupant who would have Rent Acts protection is that one is a licensee and the other is a statutory tenant?

We ought to remember that these owners, and particularly the owners who own a considerable amount of property and may well be limited companies doing this kind of business, are in this position only because of the exigencies of the war and the destruction which it caused. But for that there would be no requisitioning, no licensees and no need to consider this Measure. But for that the owners would have statutory tenants in these houses.

Why should these owners be allowed to make a financial gain by turning these people out because they have gone there under conditions of war and widespread destruction? It is something which we cannot defend that, when they are in this position, by reason of the war, of enemy damage in London and of considerable hardship already suffered by the poorest people in London, these owners should be entitled to something to which otherwise they would certainly not be entitled.

All we ask under the Amendment is that these owners should be placed in the same position as if they were already dealing with statutory tenants instead of with licensees. It seems to me to be a question of what is right and what is wrong between two persons. One may be a legal person, as it were, a property-owning company, or an individual owner, large or small. The other is bound to be a human being and his family, bound to be a person who has found it extraordinarily hard to get a house, bound to be a person who suffered as a result of the war and the destruction, and who, for that reason is a licensee instead of a statutory tenant. He is, therefore, a person whom it is our duty in this Committee to protect.

I hope that the Minister will not look at the Amendment only from the point of view of the property owner. I am certain that he will bear in mind that it is commonly said of his party that it prefers the interests of the landlord and money interests to those of the occupant of the home and social interests. if he refuses to accept an Amendment of this sort, he will merely add justification to the criticism which is frequently made, which in fact has already been made here today, and confirm in the minds of any of us who have any doubt about it—and I am bound to say that I am not quite certain whether I am in that group or not—that this Bill is fundamentally a Bill for the protection of landlords and of landlords' rights, and a Bill which gives preference to money rights over social rights.

Mrs. Jeger

There is little I wish to add to the irrefutable arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I want to add a word or two from my own experience, which makes me support the idea of some compulsion on landlords to keep the licensee as a statutory tenant. There is a very strong temptation in London for landlords to turn their unfurnished property into furnished rooms. That is a very great financial temptation, and I think that it will be in the minds of many landlords when considering whether to act on the provisions of this Clause.

As the Clause stands at present, it is entirely optional to the landlord to keep these people on or not. If the landlord looks at his property from a moneymaking point of view and has any sense, he will see that, by getting the licensees out and furnishing the rooms as modestly as possible to bring them within the definition of furnished accommodation, he can let them much more advantageously.

Mr. Hay

Can the hon. Lady say how the landlord can get the licensee out? This is one of the alternatives. If the landlord wants to let furnished, or to sell with vacant possession, how can he get the people out?

Mrs. Jeger

Automatically in 1960 these people will go out. As the Clause stands, it is entirely optional for the landlord. We have to go to the landlord and say, " Please, does it suit you to keep these people on? " I am suggesting that there may be some landlords who will say, " It does not suit me to keep them on as I can make a much better investment by getting this whole street of houses." That is happening all over London, although the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) may not know of it. Because that is happening, I want to see some compulsion put on the landlord to keep the licensees as statutory tenants, whether he wants to or not, because I think his wishes are the least important factor in the case.

Mr. Sparks

I think there is a great deal of substance in the Amendment we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept. As hon. Members have already said, the Clause appears to be entirely optional. The right hon. Gentleman may very well be faced with a difficult situation. Although I admit at once that probably there are some owners who would accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, there must be some, generally in London, who desire not to accept licensees as statutory tenants. When first approached as to whether they will accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, they will probably adopt a dilatory attitude in making up their minds whether or not to accede to the request of the local authority. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that a number of them, when pressed finally, will decline to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant.

We are told that then the question of a lease may be discussed, or offered. Again there will be a long delay and, finally, there will be the decision, " We do not desire to lease the property." If then the right hon. Gentleman says there is to be compulsory purchase before 31st March, 1960, to the extent that he does so he will help to provide security of tenure for the occupants. So far as I can understand, his policy throughout has been not to authorise purchase except as the very last resort. If he adopts that attitude he will find that by the terminal date quite a number of these places will cease to be requisitioned and the owner will know that. The owner will know that if he can protract the interval and is able to get possession of the house on 31st March, 1960, it will pay him handsomely.

The right hon. Gentleman represents a London constituency and must know of the racket which is taking place in the congested areas of London where considerable sums of money are being made by letting furnished rooms in these houses. An owner of a house could let furnished rooms at £2, £2 10s. or, perhaps, £3 a room, and it may be a 12-roomed house. At £2 a room he would be getting roughly £24 a week by letting all the rooms as against a statutory rent of perhaps £100 a year, or approximately £2 a week. Throughout the incentive is for the owner not to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, nor to agree to a lease, and, if possible, to resist any purchase of his house.

I think the right hon. Gentleman should be perfectly satisfied in agreeing to the principle of our Amendment. Where there is no valid reason why the owner should refuse to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant, he should be directed or compelled to accept. Financially, he would be no worse off than if his house had not been requisitioned at all. If the house had not been requisitioned at all, the chances are that the landlord would have had a tenant protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. In that event, if the licensee were permitted to remain as a statutory tenant, the landlord would receive the same by way of standard rent as any other landlord owning property controlled by the Rent Acts. He would not lose anything by being directed to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant.

Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to do something to place this decision on the courts, he will find that a considerable number of owners will decline to accept licensees as statutory tenants, will decline a lease, and resist compulsory purchase. By that attitude they will, as it were, dam up the whole process of the Bill until, by the terminal date, the problem will be much as we have emphasised on many previous occasions. There will be a considerable residue of these cases not otherwise dealt with in the Bill in which licensees will be trespassers and in danger of becoming homeless. If the Minister adopts the principle of the Amendment, he will to some extent reduce that contingency and will help very much to solve the problem.

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) said that the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) were irrefutable. Nonetheless, I shall do my best to answer them.

I think I can put the point very briefly. These houses were vacant when they were requisitioned by the State. It is therefore quite clear that it is the duty of the State to return those houses vacant to the owner when requisitioning ends.

Mr. Mitchison

They were only vacant as a result of the war.

Mr. Sandys

Something was taken away and, when dealing with a house, it obviously makes a difference whether it is vacant or not.

Mr. Sparks

Some were given willingly.

Mr. Sandys

The houses were compulsorily acquired under wartime requisitioning powers as vacant houses. Therefore it seems right that, when requisitioning comes to an end, unless agreement is reached, or unless the houses are compulsorily purchased, the property should be returned to the owner in the state in which it was when it was compulsorily taken from him.

Mr. J. Silverman

Because of the extent to which the property was vacant when taken from him, why should an owner be in a better position than the owner of an occupied rent-protected tenancy?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Member is dealing with particular cases. Some cases are of one kind and some of another. I am taking the very simple proposition that, If something is taken compulsorily from somebody, it ought to be given back to him in the same state and form in which it was taken from him. Two things have to be done. The property has to be returned vacant to the owner, and the damage caused by dilapidations during the period of requisition has to be made good—unless other arrangements can be made by agreement, or, in the last resort, through compulsory purchase.

The purpose of the Clause, on which the Amendment arises, is to encourage owners to take on the existing licensees by agreement as statutory tenants. The purpose of the Clause is not to compel owners to do so. What is suggested in the Amendment is that an owner should be forced—compelled—to let his house to a tenant chosen for him by the local authority and at a rent fixed for him by Parliament. That amounts to compulsory leasing. Although hon. Members opposite may see a difference, I cannot see the difference between compulsory leasing and requisitioning.

If an owner is compelled to take on somebody who is chosen for him and if the rent is fixed, I cannot see that the house has in any way been derequisitioned. It amounts to compulsory leasing, which is requisitioning, for an indefinite period, for the lifetime of the licensee and of his successor. That is not a proposition which we can properly include in a Bill, the primary purpose of which is to derequisition houses, and for that reason I am quite unable to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Silverman

Surely, there are seven or eight million rent-protected tenancies among which that happens every day by the operation of the law. Why should there be any difference under this system?

Mr. Sandys

If we accepted the Amendment, the whole of the rest of the Bill could go by the board, for it would provide a complete answer to the whole problem. All that would happen is that every owner would be compelled to keep on every licensee in his house and the problem of requisitioning would be solved to the extent that it would.go on for ever. But that is not a proposition which we could possibly contemplate, and it would be contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill, which has been approved by Parliament.

Mr. Gibson

What the Minister has just said indicates the deep difference of view between the two sides of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman wants to protect first the interests of the property owners and he does not seem to care very much what happens to the human welfare of the tenants in the houses.

It is quite true that these houses were empty when they were requisitioned, because the war was in progress. We were all suffering. A lot of us remained in London and continued to face the bombs when the owners of these properties were running away into safe areas. It is quite false to talk about empty houses in wartime as being on the same basis as empty houses in a normal time of peace.

We had to requisition these houses because so many of the families who stayed in London were bombed out. So many, indeed, were bombed out that we had to take large blocks of flats well outside the boroughs in which people were bombed, because in the main it was the poor boroughs which got the worst of the bombing in the residential areas. Therefore, it is wrong to say that a special view must be taken of the problem because the properties were empty when they were requisitioned. Even if the war situation which brought about requisitioning had not arisen, I would say that human welfare should come before the interests of property.

Mr. Sandys

May I remind the hon. Member, who is well acquainted with these facts, that 50 per cent. of the houses have been requisitioned since the war? They were requisitioned right up to 1949.

Mr. Gibson

Eighty thousand Londoners had their homes completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands had their houses severely damaged. Mine was damaged three times during the war. Most of the repairs I have paid for myself, because I did not like some of the rigmarole that went on.

People who owned houses and left them were not the only ones who suffered. The people who suffered most were those who remained—and that means the great mass of Londoners, excluding the old, the blind and the children who were evacuated. In the main, the working population remained and stuck it out. Many of them were killed and 80,000 houses were destroyed.

I am not much impressed, therefore, by the argument that because property was empty when it was requisitioned it ought to be handed back empty to owners, particularly when we remember that in very few cases are the owners small private owners. Most of the houses are owned by property companies.

Mr. Hay

They ran away, did they?

Mr. Gibson

They ran away the same as the others. They went to the safe seaside resorts in Wales and other parts of the country.

The need for the Amendment to put teeth into the Clause is obvious. The borough part of which the Minister represents in Parliament has already tried this arrangement. It has tried to get landlords to accept licensees as tenants but has completely failed. Let me remind the Committee of the figures. In Wandsworth, we have 5,541 requisitioned dwellings in which families are living, a higher figure than any other London borough and, I understand, more than anywhere else in the country. But we have a borough council which loves the policy of the right hon. Gentleman—at any rate, at the moment; we shall alter that before long. The borough council has tried hard to carry out the Minister's policy before he introduced the Bill. So anxious about it has been the borough council that it adopted a resolution accepting the Bill and saying that it would carry it into operation even before the Bill had its Second Reading.

The borough council tried to get rid of requisitioning by inviting owners to accept licensees as statutory tenants or something similar. It sent 2,031 invitations to property owners to accept tenants and to have their property back. But there was not one single reply, and for a very good reason—

The Chairman

Whether there were replies or not, the hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Gibson

The Clause is headed Acceptance of licensee as statutory tenant by owner. I am trying to show that where this arrangement has been tried, it has completely failed because there is no power, whereas the Amendment would add teeth to the Clause and help to make it work. But if I am ruled out of order, Sir Charles, I have to accept your Ruling. However, I had very nearly finished on that point.

Unless some teeth are put into the Clause, it will be an absolute failure. I hope, therefore, that in spite of the Minister's love of the defence of property—

Mr. Mitchison

On a point of order, Sir Charles, I should hate to be deprived of an opportunity of hearing any more about what happened to the notices of invitation. The effect of the Amendment is to put something in the nature of a compulsory direction in place of a mere invitation, and I respectfully submit to you, Sir Charles, that if one is to consider whether that is right or wrong one is entitled to consider experience in the matter of invitations, to see if anything is needed, and whether the Amendment would or would not fill an existing gap. I would, Sir Charles, very respectfully suggest that if there should be any more my hon. Friend could tell us on that, he would on that account be in order in doing so.

The Chairman

The point I was making was that anything that happened before did not happen in connection with the Amendment. The history of what has happened before has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison

This Amendment is designed to remedy a trouble which it is thought will arise, and the best proof that that trouble will arise is that it, or something uncommonly like it, has already arisen. I respectfully submit that one is entitled to look at the mischief when one is examining a proposed remedy of it.

The Chairman

I think that if we were to go as far as that in respect of every matter our debates in this Committee would be exceedingly long.

Mr. Gibson

I want to finish by reiterating that this Amendment would put some teeth into the Clause; not many, but it would, at any rate, put in a few teeth. It would help to make it work much more successfully than the voluntary effort by the Wandsworth Borough Council, when the council offered houses back to the owners on condition that they took the tenants of the houses as statutory tenants, or as people of an equivalent status. With that experience before us, and because of the knowledge which, I know, the Government have of this question, for it has been supplied to them in reports month by month, and especially because of the knowledge which, I know, the Minister has, I say that if he wants to make the Clause work he must accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Silverman

It is my view, as it is the view of my hon. Friends, that not only does the Clause lack teeth but it will be stillborn. Many of my hon. Friends share my view, based on our experience, that very few owners will take advantage voluntarily of the Clause. Our experience is that as soon as the owners have had an opportunity of getting hold of property on vacant possession they have sold it right away, provided the property was saleable. If it was not saleable they tried to let it as furnished dwellings at grossly enhanced rentals. They certainly have tried to do so with some of the larger properties.

The likelihood that any considerable number of landlords will take advantage of the Clause is, in my view, entirely nonexistent. The only way in which the Minister can make any use of the Clause is by agreeing to some such Amendment as we have suggested. It is a modest Amendment. It does not put the matter in the control of the local authorities, because they have to go to the county court, and the county court has to make an order. It is not an Amendment which it would be unreasonable for the Minister to accept.

7.15 p.m.

In my view, there is no reason whatever why the owners of these properties should be in a better position than is the owner of any statutory tenancy. Indeed, they have come off very much better so far. They have had this property, occupied by tenants provided by a council their rents have been collected for them; repairs have been done for them; they have not had to bear arrears of rent. So far, they have come off very well.

Mr. Mitchison

Too well.

Mr. Silverman

Now it is suggested that the property should be handed back to them with vacant possession, and they will be able to sell it at considerably enhanced prices. That is completely wrong. I do not see why there should be this difference of treatment. The Minister has said that the property was taken away from them and that it was vacant at the time and that it should be handed back to them vacant. I cannot see the logic of that. In 1916 and 1920, and again in 1939, we took away certain rights from the owners of rent-protected dwellings. We took away their right to increase the rents. We took away their right to sell with vacant possession. Nobody, not even hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, dare say that those rights should be handed back at the present time.

Why should these rights be handed back to these owners merely on account of the sheer accident that the properties were vacant at the time when councils took them over? I think it is quite wrong. The Amendment does not go very far. As I have said, it is a modest Amendment, and, as I have also said, if the Minister wants the Clause to work effectively, he should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton

I was very disappointed that the Minister did not feel able to accept the Amendment. The case for it has been argued with great cogency by several of my hon. Friends. The Clause, as it stands, gives preferential treatment to a certain class of not exceptionally deserving landlords, and I regret that the Minister has been unable either to accept the Amendment or himself to suggest an alternative. That being so, my hon. Friends have no option but to divide in support of the Amendment, but although we shall divide now, I hope the Minister may give further thought to this matter during the time which must still elapse before the Bill's passage through Parliament is completed.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

Division No. 55.] AYES [7.17 p.m.
Adams, Richard Hannan, W. Pargiter, G. A.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hargreaves, A. Parker, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hastings, S. Paton, J.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Hayman, F. H. Pearson, A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Peart, T. F.
Awbery, S. S. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Popplewell, E.
Bacon, Miss Alice Herbison, Miss M. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Balfour, A. Hobson, C. R. Probert, A. R.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Holman, P. Proctor, W. T.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Houghton, Douglas Pryde, D. J.
Benson, G. Hoy, J. H. Rankin, John
Beswick, F. Hubbard, T. F. Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bing, G. H. C. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Reid, William (Carmlachie)
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Rhodes, H.
Blenkinsop, A. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Blyton, W. R. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bowles, F. G. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Ross, William
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Janner, B. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jeger, Mrs. Lena Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Johnson, James (Rugby) Short, E. W.
Burke, W. A. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Callaghan, L. J. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Simmons, C. J.(Brierley Hill)
Champion, A. J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clunie, J. Jones, James (Wrexham) Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Coldrick, W. Keenan, W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Collick, P. H. Kenyon, C. Sorensen, R. W.
Collins, V. J. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cove, W. G. King, Dr. H. M. Sparks, J. A
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kinley, J. Steele, T.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Lawson, G. M. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Swingler, S. T.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lewis, Arthur Thornton, E.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lindgren, G. S. Timmons, J
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Logan, D. G. Turner-Samuels, M.
de Freitas, Geoffrey McInnes, J. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Deer, G. McKay, John (Wallsend) Viant, S. P.
Delargy, H. J. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Warbey, W. N.
Dodds, N. N. Mainwaring, W. H. Watkins, T. E.
Donnelly, D. L. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Weitzman, D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mann, Mrs. Jean Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Manuel, A. C. West, D. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mason, Roy Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mayhew, C. P. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Messer, Sir F. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Fernyhough, E. Mitchison, G. R. Wilkins, W. A.
Finch, H. J. Moody, A. S. Williams, David (Heath)
Foot, M. M. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Forman, J. C. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Moyle, A. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Gibson C. W. Nally, W. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Glanville James Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Willis, E. G.
Grey, C. F. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oldfield, W. H. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Oliver, C. H. Yates, V. F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Oswald, T. TELLERS FOR TI-LE AYES:
Hale, Leslie Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Mr. John Taylor and
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Palmer, A. M. F. Mr. J. T. Price.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Pannell, Charles
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Bennett, Sir William (Woodside) Brooman-White, R. C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Browne, Jack (Govan)
Armstrong, C. W. Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Bishop, F. P. Bullard, D. G.
Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.) Black, C. W. Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Baldwin, A. E. Bossom, Sir A. C. Burden, F. F. A.
Barlow, Sir John Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Campbell, Sir David
Beach, Maj. Hicks Boyle, Sir Edward Carr, Robert
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Cary, Sir Robert
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Braithwaite, Sir Gurney Channon, H.

The Committee divided: Ayes 188,Noes 210.

Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead) Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Powell, J. Enoch
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Iremonger, T. L. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Cole, Norman Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Profumo, J. D.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Jennings, Sir Roland Raikes, Sir Victor
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C. Jones, A. (Hall Green) Renton, D. L. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Ridsdale, J. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Kaberry, D. Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood) Kerby, Capt. H. B. Robertson, Sir David
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Kerr, H. W. Roper, Sir Harold
Davidson, Viscountess Lambert, Hon. G. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Deedes, W. F. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Russell, R. S.
Digby, S. Wingfield Langford-Holt, J. A. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA. Leather, E. H. C. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Donner, Sir P. W. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Linstead, Sir H. N. Scott, Sir Donald
Duthie, W. S. Llewellyn, D. T. Scott-Milner, Cmdr. R.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Shepherd, William
Fell, A. Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Finlay, Graeme Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Fisher, Nigel Longden, Gilbert Spearman, A. C. M.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Speir, R. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollock) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Spence, H. R (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Glover, D. Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Stevens, Geoffrey
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. McKibbin, A. J. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Gower, H. R. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Gresham Cooke, R. McLean, Neil (Inverness) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Grimston Hon. John (St. Albans) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Studholme, H. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Hare, Hon. J. H. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Markham, Major Sir Frank Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston) Marlowe, A. A. H. reeling, W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Harvey Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Maude, Angus Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Mayden, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hay, John Medlicott, Sir Frank Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Touche, Sir Gordon
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Morrison, John (Salisbury) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Heath, Edward Nabarro, G. D. N. Wade, D. W.
Higgs, J. M. C. Neave, Airey Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hill Dr. Charles (Luton) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Mile'bne)
Hill Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Wall, Major Patrick
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nugent, G. R. H. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hirst, Geoffrey Oakshott, H. D. Watkinson, H. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Odey, C. W. Wellwood, W.
Holt, A. F. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)
Hope, Lord John Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Page, R. G. Wills, G.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Perkins, Sir Robert Woollam, John Victor
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Peyton, J. W. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Legit.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) Pitt, Miss E. M.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.