§ Lords Amendment proposed: In page 13 line 11, after the Amendment last inserted, insert Clause C:
§ C.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect for the purposes of section five of this Act or, in Scotland, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920.1393
§ (2) Where works have been carried out on a street under—
- (a)section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1875, or
- (b)the Private Street Works Act, 1892, or
- (c)any of the enactments referred to in section one of the Local Government (Street Works) (Scotland) Act, 1956. or
- (d)the corresponding provisions of any local Act,
§ Provided that if benefit accrues from the carrying out of the works not only to the dwelling but also to other premises of the landlord or superior landlord, the amount to be treated as aforesaid shall be so much only of the expenditure or liability as may be determined, by agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant or by the county court, or in Scotland the sheriff, to be properly apportionable to the dwelling, having regard to the benefit accruing, from the carrying out of the works, to the dwelling and to the other premises.
§ (3) For the purposes of this section the amount of any expenditure shall be treated as diminished by the amount of any contribution made in respect thereof under any enactment.
§ (4)Subsection (3) of section five of this Act and the proviso to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 shall not apply to any increase authorised by virtue of this section.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
§ Mr. Lindgren
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 51, at the beginning to insert:Subject to the provisions of the following subsection".Perhaps we might with this Amendment, discuss the next Amendment, in line 55, at the end to add:(5) Notwithstanding anything in the last fore-, going subsection, the said subsection (3) and the said proviso mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, shall apply to an increase authorised by virtue of this section if the increase arises from any expenditure or liability incurred as a result of a request made under subsection (1) of section six of the New Streets Act, 1951, and of works carried out in consequence of that request.1394 After the discussion on the previous Amendments, I am not hopeful that the Government will give even the consideration we think should be given to this Amendment. The Amendment from another place is, again, an example of giving power to the landlord to make charges which, at present, he cannot make. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that the making up of private street works by a local authority is not a reason for a landlord to increase rent and charge the 8 per cent. of the cost to the tenant.
Under the present law, when a private street is made up the landlords have to bear the cost. The Lords Amendment gives landlords the right to add another increase to their rents, in addition to those provided for already in the Bill, in respect of the making up of a private street by the local authority. The Bill, therefore, will not only give the landlord double rent as a minimum, but will double the value of his property.
The effect of the Amendment is that where a landlord has asked the local authority to make up the street he shall not be entitled to make an increased charge of rent. We admit that the making up of the street and its maintenance by the local authority is at the cost of the ratepayers at large and will enhance the value of the property. Landlords will already have the right to evict tenants from houses which are over the stipulated rateable values; the Lords Amendment is an added inducement to them to impose greater insecurity upon tenants than now exist.
I do not want to labour the point, in view of the lateness of the hour. Our suggestion is that where the landlord has requested the local authority to make up the street he should not be allowed to make a charge to the tenants.
§ Mr. H. Brooke
I hope that the House will permit me to explain the Clause. The 1920 Act already covers the case in which a landlord incurs expenditure in making up a road. The Lords Amendment brings that position up to date and enables it to cover not only that case, but the case where the local authority makes up the road and charges the landlord with the cost. There is the further 1395 case where houses are converted into flats, a contingency not covered by the 1920 Act.
The Lords Amendment extends the provisions of that Act to cover that case, also. It is important, because a house of some size may have gardens fronting on to the road and be converted into flats. Indeed, it is likely to be so converted as the result of the operation of the Bill.
The proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment is concerned with the case where the landlord makes up the road to get it taken over by the local authority, and would provide an appeal to the county court against any amount being added to the rents in respect of money which has been spent in that way.
I see that the Opposition is not challenging the case where the local authority itself makes up the road. As understood it, at any rate on this Amendment, the Opposition is not seeking to give the tenant a right of appeal to the county court in the case where the local authority itself takes the initiative, makes up the road and charges the landlord with it, but only in the case where the landlord makes up the road himself.
The Amendment refers to Section 6 of the New Streets Act, 1951, which, if I remember rightly, was a Private Member's Bill which was carried through under a different Administration and, I believe, supported by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Under Section 6 of the 1951 Act the amount of the work is to be such as the local authority requiresbefore declaring the street to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large.That is to say, it gives the local authority the power to say how much work needs to be done. I cannot see the distinction the Opposition seeks to draw between the case where the local authority makes up the street itself and charges the frontagers and the case, to which it is directing this Amendment, where the landlord makes up the street:as the local authority require before declaring the street to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large.It seems to me that, in both instances, the position is the same. If the hon. Member presses the Amendment it appears that he will be seeking indirectly 1396 to amend the New Streets Act, 1951, which was passed under a Government of which he was a member. I hardly think that that is a reasonable course to take. I hope I have shown in my short speech that I have given attention to the point he raised and tried to probe it, but I think there would be an inconsistency if he were to press the House to accept his Amendment.
§ Mr. Mitchison
If I may have the leave of the House, as I formally seconded the Amendment, may I say that the right hon. Gentleman has quite misunderstood our Amendment. Indeed, I really wonder whether he has read it. The point about the New Streets Act cases is that in those cases it is the landlord himself who, with his fellow frontagers, asks the local authority to do the work and, having asked, compels it to do so because it is bound by the terms of that Act, whenever it receives a request of that kind, to make up the road.
The difference we draw between that type of case and the ordinary Private Street Works Act case is that there ought to be a right of appeal when it is the landlord who with his fellows has set the machinery in motion. That is different from a case where the local authority is taking action, even if it is doing so at the request of the frontagers. It is still at its discretion and in performance of its duty. It is not a vitally important point, but it seems to be right and fair that there should be an appeal when it is the landlord who has made the move and obliged the local authority to take action. I think that there are more substantial objections to the new Clause as a whole.
§ Mr. H. Brooke
If I may have the leave of the House to reply to the hon. and learned Member, I want to show him that I have appreciated the point he has made. The fact is that Parliament in its wisdom has laid down in the 1951 Act the conditions under which local authorities ought to take over streets in built-up areas. The conditions will be in the memory of the hon. and learned Member. They are that the majority of the frontage owners want the street made up and certain other conditions. The need for making up the street flows from the fulfilment of those conditions.
To give the tenants the right to object to the need for street works would 1397 really be the same as saying that even if the conditions that Parliament has laid down are fulfilled nevertheless the street ought never to have been taken over. I cannot think that any landlord will spend more than the local authority requires in making 4up a street. Therefore, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
§ Question, That these words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment, put and negatived.
§ Mr. H. Brooke
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In replying to the Opposition Amendment I briefly explained the purpose of this new Clause. It introduces no new principle. It is confined to bringing up to date the provision which is already contained in the 1920 Act, which enables an increase of rent to be made where the landlord himself spends money on the road The new Clause simply and solely extends that provision to two other cases, one where the local authority makes up the road and charges the landlord and the other where the property in question is divided up into flats or maisonettes.
§ Mr. Mitchison
As I understand the law at present—and I may be speaking incorrectly, but I hope not—I find that the cost of making up a road is not an improvement. I am looking at page 335 of Megarry's latest work. It seems to me that the Clause in its present form is certainly an extension of any ordinary idea of an improvement, and the right hon. Gentleman himself does not suggest that this particular provision existed previously. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that whenever the law is altered by this Bill it appears to be for the benefit of the landlord, and this particular alteration is absolutely typical of the attitude that the Government have taken throughout—to put a little bit more upon the tenant, and a little bit more upon him yet—and heaven help the man if his back breaks, because the Tory Party will not help him.
§ Mr. MacColl
I cannot rise to the level of emotion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I also suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has again loaded the dice against the tenant. If I have misunderstood the position, I should like to 1398 put this point to him and ask for his explanation. The marginal note in the new Clause says:Private street works to count as improvements.That is very nice, round, comprehensive and simple. If we look at the new Clause, it says that it only has effect in regard to the operation "of section five of this Act or" the equivalent Section of the Act of 1920. These both refer to questions where the landlord is to get more rent by counting street works to be improvements.
There are two provisions of the Bill where the tenant may benefit by improvements. One is the question of compensation for improvements in paragraph 5 of the Fourth Schedule, whereby a tenant who has paid for the improvements and is then evicted can claim compensation for the improvements he has done. There may not be many cases in which a tenant will have paid for private street works, because the charge is one upon the landlord, but when there are landlords who have no money—and there are many who say they have not and who in controlled property refuse to do any work on the house—there probably are cases when tenants in desperation have said that they want the street made up and, therefore, will pay for it out of their own pockets rather than flounder about in the mud.
If that is the position, if a tenant has actually paid from his own pocket what should be the landlord's share of the private street works, does the definition of that as an improvement enable him to claim back his compensation, or is it limited only to the case where the landlord is getting his 8 per cent. increase in rent'?
The other case in which that might arise is in the question of the gross rateable value. In Part III of the Fifth Schedule, there is a provision which says that if the tenant has himself paid for improvements, the gross value can be reduced and, therefore, the rent limit reduced and the rateable value can be reduced and, therefore, the limit of decontrol reduced on the basis of that amount.
Does a private street work count as an improvement for those purposes? This is a point to which we should have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that it does not count. 1399 I do not see how one can read the Bill as saying that it does. If it does not count, we must face up to the meaning of this. It means that the Government have gone out of their way to get into the Bill an extension of the definition of "improvement" to enable them to grind out of the tenant the last halfpenny of rent increase for the 8 per cent., but that in the only two cases in the Bill where some concession could be made to the tenant they have not gone out of their way to make those concessions. That is what I suspect has happened. We should not let the Amendment pass until we have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. H. Brooke
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) quoted somebody whose name is Megarry and not Mehatty, at page 335. I think the hon. and learned Member will find that that was written before a case in 1956 which is not referred to. If I am rightly informed, Megarry cites a number of earlier cases but he does not cite a case in the Queen's Bench Division in 1956, in which the view was taken that an improvement need not be actually carried out on the site of the demised premises but could be regarded as an improvement within Section 2 (1, a) of the 1920 Act if it was for the benefit of the demised premises. I think that is the reply to the quotation that he was making.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but am I right in understanding that what he now proposes to put in as an improvement has never been an improvement before?
§ Mr. Brooke
As I read the 1920 Act —and so far as I know this has never gone to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords—and as I read the decision that was taken in 1956 in the High Court on a case of this kind, they go to show that the 1920 Act does provide that where the landlord at his own expense repairs a road, then he is entitled to charge 8 per cent. of the cost of the improvement.
§ Mr. Brooke
I hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been listening 1400 earlier, because I have already explained the matter twice.
The 1920 Act covers only the case where the landlord does the work himself at his own cost for a single house, but there are other cases which we must consider. One of them is just as frequent a case. It is where the local authority does the work and charges the landlord. It is just the same from the landlord's point of view so far as the cost is concerned. But that is not covered by the 1920 Act, and it is quite unreasonable that the landlord should be put in a different position though he has actually spent the same amount of money.
Neither does the 1920 Act cover the case where the house or building is, in fact, divided into separate dwellings. That, as I pointed out, was a case likely to become more frequent through the operation of the Bill which will encourage the conversion of larger houses. It therefore seemed desirable to bring the 1920 Act up to date.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) inquired what would happen under other Clauses of the Bill if, for some reason, the work was carried out at the expense of the tenant. The answer to that is that, normally, there is no cases where the tenant bears the cost, and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself granted that such a case would be rare. If the tenant is required to pay in such a case, then he can get the cost back by deduction from the rent, and so the matter is settled straight away.
§ Mr. MacColl
All this business about compensation and the reduction of the rateable value is based on the assumption that tenants very often take on landlords' burdens because the landlords, getting only the controlled rents, have not the resources. They do it themselves rather than not have it done. That is the sole basis on which either of these cases come in. It might equally well apply in the case of someone wanting a new street rather than have the thing held up. He says, "All right, you are not getting much rent. I will pay my share myself." But that is no reason why such a person should now have to pay extra rent.
§ Mr. Brooke
As I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, if the tenant does bear the cost he has his 1401 immediate remedy. He can get back what he has spent by deduction from the rent. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question, street works will not count for gross value in connection with decontrol.
§ Mr. Lindgren
We contest the Minister's view that a public street is there purely for the benefit of the landlord and the tenant. It is there for the benefit of the public at large. The New
|Division No. 139.]||AYES||110.35 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Duthie, W. S.||Hornby, R. P.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Horobin, Sir Ian|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Elliot Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Elliott, R.W.(N'oastle upon Tyne,N.)||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Errington, Sir Eric||Howard, John (Test)|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Erroll, F. J.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)|
|Ashton, H.||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Finlay, Graeme||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Fisher, Nigel||Hulbert, Sir Norman|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Hurd, A. R.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Forrest, G.||Hutchison, A. M. G. (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Balniel, Lord||Fort, R.||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)|
|Barber, Anthony||Foster, John||Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Hyde, Montgomery|
|Barter, John||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Freeth, Denzil||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Gammans, Lady||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Gibson-Watt, D.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Glover, D.||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Godber, J. B.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)|
|Black, C. W.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan||Joseph, Sir Keith|
|Body, R. F.||Goodhart, Philip||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot|
|Boothby, Sir Robert||Gough, C. F. H.||Kaberry, D.|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Gower, H. R.||Keegan, D.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Graham, Sir Fergus||Kerby, Capt. H. B.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Grant, W. (Woodside)||Kerr, H. W.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)||Kershaw, J. A.|
|Braine, B. R.||Green, A.||Kimball, M.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Gresham Cooke, R.||Kirk, P. M.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Grimond, J.||Lambton, Viscount|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Langford-Holt, J. A.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Leavey, J. A.|
|Bryan, P.||Gurden, Harold||Leburn, W. G.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Carr, Robert||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Cole, Norman||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)||Llewellyn, D. T.|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldrield)|
|Cooke, Robert||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Longden, Gilbert|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Hay, John||Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Lucas, P.B.(Brentford & Chiswick)|
|Cunningham, Knox||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||McAdden, S. J.|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Hesketh, R. F.||McKibbin, A. J.|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)||McLean, Nell (Inverness)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Holt, A. F.||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hope, Lord John||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
§ I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Lords Amendment.
§ Question put, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 230.
|Maddan, Martin||Pott, H. P.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)||Powell, J. Enoch||Storey, S.|
|Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Price, David (Eastielgh)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.)||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Profumo, J. D.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Mathew, R.||Raikes, Sir Victor||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Ramsden, J. E.||Teeling, W.|
|Mawby, R. L.||Rawlinson, Peter||Temple, John M.|
|Medlicott, Sir Frank||Redmayne, M.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Remnant, Hon. P.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Moore, Sir Thomas||Renton, D. L. M.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Ridsdale, J. E.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Rippon, A. G. F.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Nabarro, G. D. N.||Robertson, Sir David||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Nairn, D. L. S.||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Weave, Airey||Robson-Brown, W.||Vaughan-Morgan, J K.|
|Nicholls, Harmar||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Roper, Sir Harold||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'leborn)|
|Nugent, G. R. H.||Russell, R. S.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Oakshott, H. D.||Schofield Lt.-Col. W.||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.||Sharples, R. G.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Shepherd, William||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Osborne, C.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Page, R. G.||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland)|
|Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Soames, Christopher||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Partridge, E.||Speir, R. M.||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Peyton, J. W. W.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)||Woollam, John Victor|
|Pike, Miss Mervyn||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Pitman, I. J.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Pitt, Miss E. M.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)||Mr. Richard Thompson and|
|Colonel J. H. Harrison.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Holmes, Horace|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Howell, Denis (All Saints)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hubbard, T. F.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Deer, G.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Baird, J.||Delargy, H. J.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Balfour, A.||Dodds, N. N.||Hunter, A, E.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Donnelly, D. L.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)|
|Benson, G.||Dye, S.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Beswick, Frank||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Janner, B.|
|Blackburn, F.||Edelman, M.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Boardman, H.||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Fernyhough, E.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Fienburgh, W.||Kenyon, C.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Finch, H. J.||King, Dr. H. M.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Fletcher, Eric||Lawson, G. M.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Forman, J. C.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Burke, W. A.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)||Lewis, Arthur|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Gibson, C. W.||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Lipton, Marcus|
|Carmichael, J.||Greenwood, Anthony||Logan, D. G.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Grey, C. F.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Champion, A. J.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||MacColl, J. E.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||MacDermot, Niall|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||McGhee, H. G.|
|Clunie, J.||Hale, Leslie||McGovern, J.|
|Coldrick, W.||Hamilton, W. W.||McInnes, J.|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Hannan, W.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Hayman, F. H.||MacMillan, M.K. (Western Isles)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Healey, Denis||MaoPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Cove, W. G.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Mahon, Simon|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Herblson, Miss M.||Malnwaring, W. H.|
|Cronin, J. D.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Probert, A. R.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Mason, Roy||Proctor, W. T.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Pryde, D. J.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Messer, Sir F.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Randall, H. E.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Mitchison, C. R.||Rankin, John||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Monslow, W.||Redhead, E. C.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Moody, A. S.||Reeves, J.||Thornton, E.|
|Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Rhodes, H.||Tomney, F.|
|Mort, D. L.||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Moss, R.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Usborne, H. C.|
|Moyle, A.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Mulley, F. W.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Ross, William||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Oram, A. E.||Royle, C.||West, D. G.|
|Orbach, M.||Short, E W.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Oswald, T.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Owen, W. J.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Wigg, George|
|Padley, W. E.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hon)||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Paget, R. T.||Skeffington, A. M.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Slater, Mrs. H (Stoke, N.)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Snow, J. W.||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Son-risen, R. W.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Parker, J.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Parkin, B. T.||Sparks, J. A.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Pearson, A.||Steele, T.||Woof, R. E.|
|Pentland, N.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Plummer, Sir Leslie||Stonehouse, John||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Popplewell, E.||Stones, W. (Consett)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Prentice, R. E.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)||Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor|
§ [With Special Entry.]