HC Deb 30 March 1955 vol 539 cc471-87
Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out from " may " to " requiring " in line 24, and insert: after consultation with the local authority give directions. The Amendment arises because during the Committee stage the Minister said that he would be prepared to make a concession. It deletes: …give directions to the local authority… and inserts: …after consultation with the local authority gives directions. In view of the Minister's previous indication, and in the interests of brevity, I move the Amendment in this manner.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Key

I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, after " directions "to insert" either."

This Amendment, and the next Amendment, in page 6, line 26, go together. The purpose is to give the local authority the option to decide whether to lease or to purchase a house in this case. As the Clause stands, the local authority has no option to do so; the Minister has to say whether the local authority is to lease or purchase the property. It was felt in Committee that it would be a good thing for the local authority to be the one which determined what should be done. I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 26, leave out " as the case may be " and insert " at the option of the local authority."—[Mr. Key.]

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, at the end, to insert: Provided that no directions shall be given under this subsection, unless the Minister has afforded to any licensee of the house or of any part of the house an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose and unless the Minister is satisfied that such hardship as aforesaid to the owner would be greater than any hardship which by the giving of such directions would be caused to any such licensee and to any persons residing with him. This is an Amendment intended to remedy defects in a Clause to which we take the very strongest objection. The Clause as it stands, allowing for the Amendments which have just been accepted, provides, first of all, that the owner of a requisitioned house may make representations to the Minister; next, that the Minister shall consult the local authority; and then, if the Minister is satisfied that the owner will suffer severe hardship, unless the owner is enabled either to obtain vacant possession or to dispose of his vacant possession interest, the Minister may, in effect, turn the licensee out of the house and have the premises released to the owner.

There are one or two remarkable features about the Clause. The House will remember a previous Clause dealing with questions of hardship, questions which were to be taken to the county courts. In this case the Minister proposes, by administrative action, to deal with individual cases in the area of a local authority, and simply on hearing representations from one side. The Clause really merits considerable examination. It had some of that examination in Committee. The Minister then told us that, save in some exceptional cases—he did not convey in the least what the exceptional cases were; all he conveyed to me was that they were very few and far between—what it was really intended to provide for was severe financial hardship. My heart always bleeds for the limited company which is getting into the red and has to turn the licensee of a house into the street for that and no other reason.

Also, to have the licensee turned out by Ministerial action without even hearing what he has to say about it and without any consideration whatever of the licensee's position in the matter, is a piece of injustice which I should think was unparalleled in anything that even the Tory Party had ever put before the House. A short time ago I described it as an iniquitous piece of bureaucratic oppression, and so it is.

It is iniquitous, because, like other parts of the Bill, it prefers, this time very clearly and without any bones about it —the Minister made it perfectly clear by his statement to which I have referred—the financial interests of the owner to any hardship that may be caused to the licensee. That seems to me to be wholly iniquitous. Next, it is iniquitous in that it substitutes for the ordinary legal procedure of this country a purely bureaucratic business—representations made to the Minister, consultation between Whitehall and the local authority, and then the ejection of the licensee.

I remember right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite making the dickens of a fuss—if that is a Parliamentary expression—about very much less than this when we were in office. I am bound to say that, considering their professions about freedom, considering their supposed devotion to the principles of British justice, considering that they have from time to time made some claim or other that they have behaved fairly, I absolutely fail to understand how they managed to put this into a Bill. It is not only procedure, it is not only the Minister interfering in the individual case, but one conies yet again to the position of the licensee. What are we to be told about it? The Minister in Committee refused a provision that the licensee should be heard. Are we to be told that the licensee is to be heard, or that the licensee is not to be heard? I should very much like to know the answer.

It is obvious that if the licensee is to be heard on every occasion there can be no better illustration of the extraordinary inconvenience and unfairness of bringing this sort of matter before the Minister at all. Unless it is to be said that such cases will be so rare that there need be no Clause about it—and that I rule out—if the licensee is to be heard by the Ministry, the miserable licensees will be pressing up Whitehall to supplicate the great powers that be that they are not turned out of their homes by administrative action. Yet I would rather that happen than that the licensee was never heard, and it looks at present as though the licensee is never to be heard.

Does justice mean anything in this country? Is there no form of fairness between the human claims of the licensee, between his family and home rights, and the severe financial hardship that may be suffered by the owner of a requisitioned house? Is the latter all that matters to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, so singular in its solitude. so powerful in its appeal, that that and that alone is to enable a man to be turned out? Do hon. Members opposite really make this remarkable admission about their unfailing preference, their constant adhesion, their absolute subjection to the rights of property whenever those rights come into conflict with human interests? If they do, they could not have given better proof than this Clause, and they could not give better proof of it now than by refusing this Amendment, although all it does is to ask that the licensee be heard and that when a decision is made, the hardship of the licensee be weighed against the hardship of the owner.

8.15 p.m.

If the hardship proves to be as large or larger, then the poor man can stay where he is. If the Government refuse that, let them look at what they are doing. They will be saying in effect that severe financial hardship to the owner—there may be more hardship and, therefore, it must be severe hardship to the licensee, it will not be financial hardship—will be all that will be needed.

The rules that apply in the county court as between a landlord and a tenant, the rules that apply to rent-controlled houses all over this country, rules that have been worked for years past and which make the court weigh up the two hardships—that of the landlord and that of the tenant—are not to apply when the Ministry comes to decide behind closed doors. The Ministry is to consider only the financial hardship to the landlord. The hardship to the licensee, though it be human hardship, though it be greater than the financial hardship to the landlord, is to weigh for nothing in this iniquitous Clause.

Mr. Gibson

I beg to second the Amendment.

I apologise to the House for not being here when my name was called to move the Amendment, but I was refreshing the inner man, which must be done even in the House of Commons. I support the Amendment, because it raises a topic which has already been the subject of discussion today—the hardship of the tenant. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that if the tenant is to suffer greater hardship—or even equal hardship—than the owner, then the tenant should be left where he is, if the local authority, because of the circumstances of its waiting list, is unable to put him into a municipal house. That, of course, is an easy proposition. It is not a question of the owner wanting the house for his own occupation. That is covered by an earlier Clause.

This Clause permits the Minister to give instructions to the housing authority to hand the house back to the owner if, on representations by the owner, the Minister is satisfied that the owner is suffering hardship—not that he is suffering more hardship than the tenant will suffer if he is moved, but merely that he is suffering hardship. That is completely contrary to the ideas of human justice which we have in this country. Therefore, there ought to be a provision in the Bill for the tenant to be heard and heard not in a county court, which is a place in which most people hate to be—even when they are in the right, they find it difficult to talk and put their own point of view—but at a simple hearing by a civil servant appointed by the Minister. With his experience of local government, the Minister should find no difficulty in finding the right type of man to hear the appeal and on the facts to determine whether there is greater hardship on the tenant if he is turned out than there would be on the landlord if he was not given back his house.

This is not a point which we have invented. It is one which has already been noticed by a lot of people in London and one about which the Press has been talking. I want briefly to quote the newspaper which circulates in the Minister's own borough, the " Clapham Observer " for 11th February. Discussing the Bill, among other things it says: There is a prospect in Wandsworth, where it will be an almost impossible task to achieve complete derequisitioning within five years, and, at the same time, avoid causing hardship. That is the point with which we are concerned in the Amendment. We think that it would be fair and decent if the Minister would agree to accept our Clause and give the tenant an opportunity to show that he will suffer hardship and to give the borough council an opportunity to help the man, if necessary, in his appeal. At least the Minister should give the tenant a chance so that justice can be seen to be done to him and so that we do not have, as I am afraid that we have all through the Bill, the rights of property as such set against the human dignity of the tenant.

Mr. A. Evans

If the Minister purports to hold the scales fairly, he should accept the intention of the Amendment. The Clause is completely one-sided. I understand that it is inserted to meet the position where an owner would suffer financial hardship if his house were not released to him. Because the case is one of financial hardship, it seems that the Minister thinks there is only one side to the argument—that of the owner—and that the question of there being an argument for the licensee does not arise.

The Clause is surprising in its one-sidedness when one recalls the provisions of Clause 5. There the case of need is based upon whether or not the owner needs the dwelling for the occupation of himself and his spouse, and so on. We know that the case of need may be genuine if an owner requires a house for his own occupation. There both sides are heard.

When we come to Clause 6, then, because the interest is a financial one, the Minister decides that the licensee should not be heard. Apparently the Minister is satisfied that, if the claim for the release of a house is based solely upon financial need, no question should arise of the possible greater hardship that the licensee might suffer. I am surprised that the Minister left the Clause as drafted and that he did not, on his own initiative, seek to amend it so that balance would be kept, the licensee heard and justice done between the two parties. Instead he has left the decision of financial hardship solely to the arbitrament of his own officials. That is carrying prejudice too far.

It is seldom that a Minister, in deciding between conflicting claims, considers one partly only and neglects to consider the other. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider my argument, and will agree that in the cause of elementary justice he should at least hear what the conditions of the licensee are, and consider the balance of hardship between the two parties. It is not too late for him to rectify this obvious injustice and arrange for suitable words to be inserted in the Bill in another place to make it clear that both sides should be heard and justice maintained.

Mr. Sandys

There are really two points in the Amendment. The first half provides that the Minister shall consult the licensee before giving a direction to the local authority under Clause 6, and the second half provides that the Minister shall consider the relative hardship of the owner and the licensee. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that when the Amendment was moved he was absent. I think he said that he was refreshing the inner man. I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for the way in which, with no warning at all, he sprang into the breach and moved the Amendment. It is not the first time that I have seen him perform that exercise.

The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said he hoped that I would accept the intention of the Amendment. As I understand it, the intent is twofold. The first and main intent is to avoid causing hardship to the licensee. The secondary intent, which is the way of achieving that, is to ensure that both sides are heard. I fully accept the intent of the Amendment. It goes without saying that, in taking decisions of this nature, one must take into consideration the interests of both sides—in this case there are really three sides, because there is the local authority as well.

As I have said, not once but in almost every speech that I have made on the Bill, we wish to ensure, above all, that no hardship shall be caused to the licensee. The Amendment would have something to be said for it if certain other Amendments had not already been accepted. As sometimes happens when Amendments are tabled, it is overlooked that other Amendments affect the content of the proposal. Some Amendments which have been accepted do that. I submit that the purpose which the Amendment is intended to serve has already been fully met, perhaps in a more satisfactory way, by two earlier Amendments.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Will the Minister indicate what they are?

Mr. Sandys

I was just about to do so. I thought it was essential that I should.

The first Amendment to which I refer provides that the Minister is now to be required to consult the local authorities before he gives a direction under Clause 6. From all that has been said during these debates, I think it is generally accepted that the local authority, which is nearer to the licensee than the Government are, is probably the best judge of the interests of the licensee. In any case the local authority will have to take his position into account in deciding what line to take when it is consulted by the Minister.

I cannot conceive that the local authority, when consulted by the Minister, as is now provided for by the Amendment to which I am referring, would not in the first place take into account the position of the licensee. It would not be very satisfactory for the Minister to consult the local authority and the licensee at the same time. The local authority is statutorily responsible for housing accommodation in its area. I do not think the Minister should either duplicate or bypass the local authority, and try to form an opinion separate from that which the local authority will, no doubt, express to him about the position of the licensee concerned.

The second Amendment which has been adopted, and which to my mind is far more important in relation to the Amendment now before us, is that which gives the local authority the option to decide whether to release or purchase the house. That Amendment was moved by the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key). The local authority is given the option, when it receives this direction from the Minister, to decide whether to release the house or to purchase it. As the Bill is now amended, the Minister has no power to direct the local authority to release the house in cases of hardship under Clause 6. What he has is the power to direct them, at their choice, either to release or to purchase.

Therefore, it is quite clear that the local authority will have the power to decide whether hardship is going to be caused by release. I think the local authority is in a better position to judge than the Minister, and, if it comes to the conclusion that hardship will be caused, then it is perfectly free not to release the house but to purchase it. Of course, if it purchases the house and does not release it, clearly no hardship can be caused to the licensee.

Therefore, I submit that, in view of the earlier Amendments which have been adopted at the suggestion of the party opposite, the intention of the Amendment, as the hon. Member for Islington, South-West has put it, is already fully met by what has been done by earlier Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison

It was to preclude reliance on that sort of point that expressly said when moving this Amendment that we had had regard to the other Amendments on the Order Paper. I am afraid that my hon. Friends and I cannot accept that answer as satisfactory. Let me tell the Minister very shortly why.

First of all, if the local authority is to be taken as the person representing the licensee, as the person with direct knowledge of what is going on, as the person with housing responsibility, I should at once agree with the Minister, but my answer would be that we would not be objecting to this Clause in the same way if this kind of matter were left to the local authority. It is an entirely different thing when it is put into the hands of Whitehall and when there is mentioned in this Clause one hardship and one hardship only as the ground for release, and that is the severe financial hardship, so we are told, to the owner of the property.

Mr. Sandys

I want to find out what is intended by this Amendment. May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman in what circumstances hardship could be caused to the licensee, assuming that the local authority is going to purchase and not release the house where hardship arises?

Mr. Mitchison

I am coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that hardship could and might well be caused unless there were a compulsory purchase. I agree that it certainly would, and that is not provided for in the Clause as it stands.

Now take the case of compulsory purchase. The owner makes representations to the Minister that he is suffering severe financial hardship, and the Minister says to the local authority, " You must do one thing or the other." The local authority, conscious, as the Minister has told us, of its responsibility towards the licensee, is faced with having to buy a property, which it possibly may not want to buy at all, in order to make good the severe financial hardship to the landlord.

Surely that is all wrong. Surely we are putting the local authority in a false position about compulsory purchase. Surely, as the dispute is primarily one between the purse of the landlord and the home of the licensee, we ought never to try to provide for having it heard in Whitehall on representations by one side only and merely after consultation with the local authority, which itself may be in difficulties if it is driven to compulsory purchase in order to avoid hardship.

Mr. Sandys

I want to get this point clear, because the hon. and learned Gentleman is now shifting his ground a little. He no longer maintains that the hardship which might arise would be caused to the licensee and he recognises that the local authority can purchase the house. It is not compulsory purchase—the local authority has to make an offer to the owner—but it comes to the same thing. We have been assuming that the local authority will know what the licensee's position is, and everybody has agreed that it is in the best position to know.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Why should it have to purchase the house?

Mr. Sandys

Under the Clause it would be open to the local authority to make an offer to purchase, if it came to the conclusion that the licensee would otherwise suffer hardship.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Where is that provided? It is important.

Mr. Sandys

I am interrupting the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and I cannot accept interruptions while I am interrupting. I ask you to forgive me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having been so long, but I wanted to clarify the point.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying that the hardship is not for the licensee but for the local authority, which might have to buy a house which is expensive or which it otherwise would not wish to buy. If, as a result of State action, severe financial hardship is caused to an individual, it seems right in the last resort that the house should be purchased from him so that he is relieved of it. The burden is spread and the purchase of the house does not cause hardship to an individual.

Mr. Mitchison

I am not abating one jot or tittle of what I said about hardship to the licensee. I agree that this is slightly complicated. If the owner makes a case on severe hardship, the Minister goes to the local authority and says, in plain English, " Something or other has got to be done. You have either to turn the man out or buy the house."

This is the local authority which is supposed to represent the licensee's interest to the Minister. Two things seem quite inevitable—first, that the local authority cannot in those circumstances properly represent the licensee's interests; and secondly, that its temptation all the time will be, if it is at any rate faintly inconvenient to have compulsory purchase, to have the man out in order not to have compulsory purchase. I agree that the phrase " compulsory purchase" is sloppy, but we know what is meant.

In those circumstances it seems to me purely a question of machinery. The substance is that the licensee is likely—I do not say certain—to suffer hardship, that that hardship is not to be taken into account, that the only hardship which is to be taken into account, on the language of the Clause, is the hardship to the owner of the property, and that the means for judging all this are the wholly tyrannous combination—and I use the word deliberately—of the Minister, who cannot know the individual facts and who ought not to try to act as a court of justice, and the local authority, which is supposed to represent the licensee when in fact he is quite likely to have an opposite interest. That I thought a thoroughly bad piece of machinery which will cause injustice. I hope we shall divide against the refusal of the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Silverman

There is another point to which I would draw the attention of the Minister. He said that as the Clause is now amended it means that the local authority has the choice either of releasing or purchasing the house. I suggest that is not by any means clear from the wording of the Clause. It says: …the Minister may give directions to the local authority requiring them. within such period as may be specified in the directions, to release the house to the owner or, as the case may be, to make to the owner an offer to purchase the house in accordance with subsection (2) of this section. It is not at all clear whether the choice is given to the local authority or remains in the hands of the Minister. It is ambiguous.

I should have thought that the interpretation a court would be likely to place on those words would be that the choice remained with the Minister. If we were to give it to the local authority it would say in specific words, " to release the house to the owner, or, if they choose, to make the owner an offer, to purchase the house." I should like the Minister to clear up that point. I suggest that he could clear up any doubt on the issue by accepting the Amendment and thereby putting it in black and white that the Minister has to consider the hardship of the two parties. I suggest to the Minister that when a tribunal is considering the relative hardship of two parties it is far the best that the same person who considers the hardship of the owner should also consider the hardship of the tenant instead of having it at second-hand from the local authority.

Mr. Sandys

Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman). He has been reading from the Bill, but the Amendment which clarifies the position is that which was moved by the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) to page 6, line 26, to leave out " as the case may be " and to insert " at the option of the local authority." That makes it perfectly clear that the local authority has the option to decide whether it will release or make an offer to purchase.

Mr. Silverman

It still remains a question of forcing the local authority to purchase a house at what might be a completely outrageous price. A local authority may decline to do that, and, if so, it would inflict hardship on the tenant.

Mr. H. Butler

I rather fancy that the Minister is ignoring the fact that local authorities will have a dual responsibility. They will attempt to alleviate any hardship which might arise to the tenant, but it appears to be assumed that local authorities are going to purchase every property where there are difficulties. There are properties which are requisitioned and which no decent local authority would purchase as local

Division No. 57.] AYES [8.45 p.m.
Adams, Richard Cove, W. G. Glanville, James
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Grey, C. F.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Cullen, Mrs. A. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Awbery, S. S. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Balfour, A. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hale, Leslie
Benson, G. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Beswick, F. de Freitas, Geoffrey Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Bing, C. H. C. Deer, G. Hannan, W.
Blackburn, F. Delargy, H. J. Hargreaves, A.
Blenkinsop, A. Dodds, N. N. Hastings, S.
Blyton, W. R. Donnelly, D. L. Hayman, F. H.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brrnwch) Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Bowles, F. G. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Herbison, Miss M.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Hobson, C. R.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Holman, P.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Houghton, Douglas
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Hoy, J. H.
Burke, W. A. Fernyhough, E. Hubbard, T. F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Finch, H. J. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Callaghan, L. J. Fletcher, Erio (Islington, E.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Champion, A. Foot, M. M. Hughes, Emrys (s. Ayrshire)
Clunie, J. Forman, J. C. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Coldrick, W. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Collick, P. H. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Collins, V. J. Gibson, C. W. Janner, B.

authority property. The Minister must not assume that every property which at present is requisitioned is property which a local authority, as a good housing authority, would consider should be in its possession. It is very important that a local authority considering a particular property, having had it surveyed and having all the information at its disposal, should be able to say, " In the interests of our ratepayers, we will not take to ourselves this terrible junk."

What is the position of the licensee? Apparently, he has no protection. The Minister says that the local authority can purchase the property, but it does not want to purchase something that it would probably want to demolish in any case. The argument that the licensee is protected because the local authority will purchase cannot apply; and this pressure on local authorities should not be exerted on the ground that the licensee will suffer hardship.

The Minister's conception of the local authorities' position appears to be that for the purpose of pursuing the object of the Bill, he will make local authorities purchase properties that they do not require. If that is the argument with which we are faced, it is completely untenable and should not be supported.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 203.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena Moyle, A. Steele, T.
Johnson, James (Rugby) Nally, W. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Swingler, S. T.
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Oldfield, W. H. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Oliver, G. H. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Oswald, T. Thornton, E.
Jones, James (Wrexham) Paget, R. T. Timmons, J.
Keenan, W. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Turner-Samuels, M.
Kenyon, C. Palmer, A. M. F. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Pannell,Charles Viant, S. P.
King, Dr. H. M. Pargiter, G. A. Wallace, H. W.
Kinley, J. Parker, J. Warbey, W. N.
Lawson, G. M. Paton, J. Watkins, T. E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Popplewell, E. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Weitzman, D.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Lewis, Arthur Probert, A. R. West, D. G.
Lindgren, G. S. Proctor, W. T. Wheeldon, W, E.
Logan, D. G. Pryde, D. J. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
McInnes, J. Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend) Reid, William (Camlachie) Wilkins, W. A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Rhodes, H. Willey, F. T.
Mainwaring, W. H. Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Williams, David (Neath)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Ross, William Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mann, Mrs. Jean Shackleton, E. A. A. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Manuel, A. C. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Short, E. W. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mason, Roy Shurmer, P. L. E. Willis, E. G.
Mayhew, C. P. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Winterbottoen, Richard (Brightside)
Messer, Sir F. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mitchison, G. R. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) Yates, V. F.
Moody, A. S. Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Mr. Pearson and
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Sorensen, R. W. Mr. Arthur Allen.
Morrison,Rt Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Sparks, J. A.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Digby, S. Wingfield Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Alport, C. J. M. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Donner, Sir P. W. Iremonger, T. L.
Armstrong, C. W. Drewe, Sir C. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Jennings, Sir Roland
Assheton, Rt. Hn.R.(Blackburn,W.) Duthie, W. S. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Baldwin, A. E. Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, W.) Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Barlow, Sir John Fell, A. Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Finlay, Graeme Kaberry, D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Fisher, Nigel Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Kerr, H. W.
Bennett, Sir William (Woodside) Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lambert, Hon. G.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Lambton, Viscount
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Garner-Evans, E. H. Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bishop, F. P. Glover, D. Langford-Holt, J. A.
Black, C. W. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Leather, E. H. C.
Bossom, Sir A. C. Gower, H. R. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Graham, Sir Fergus Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Boyle, Sir Edward Gresham Cooke, R. Linstead, Sir H. N.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Llewellyn, D. T.
Braithwate, Sir Gurney Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Brooman-White, R. C. Hall, John (Wycombe) Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Longden, Gilbert
Bullard, D. G. Harvie-Watt, Sir George Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hay, John Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Burden, F. F. A. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Campbell, Sir David Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Carr, Robert Heath, Edward Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Cary, Sir Robert Higgs, J. M. C. McKibbin, A. J.
Channon, H. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph(East Grinstead) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hill, John (S. Norfolk) McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Cole, Norman Hirst, Geoffrey Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Holland-Martin, C. J. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Holt, A. F. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Manningham.Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Marlowe, A. A. H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Marples, A. E.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Davidson, Viscountess Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J. Maude, Angus
Deedas, W. F. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.) Maydon Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Medlicott, Sir Frank Ridsdale, J. E. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Roberts, Peter (Heeley) Teeling, W.
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Robertson, Sir David Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Roper, Sir Harold Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Neave, Airey Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Russell, R. S. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Touche, Sir Gordon
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Nugent, G. R. H. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas Wade, D. W.
Oakshott, H. D. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)
Odey, G. W. Scott, Sir Donald Wall, Major Patrick
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Spearman, A. C. M. Wellwood, W.
Page, R. G. Speir, R. M. Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Perkins, Sir Robert Spens, nt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Peyton, J. W. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Wills, G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Stevens, Geoffrey Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Wood, Hon. R.
Pitt, Miss E. M. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) Woollam, John Victor
Powell, J. Enoch Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) Mr. Edward Wakefield and
Profumo, J. D. Studholme, H. G. Colonel J. H. Harrison.
Raikes, Sir Victor Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Renton, D. L. M. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold