HC Deb 26 March 1957 vol 567 cc1043-69
Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, after "fulfilled", to insert: and the maintenance of the dwelling-house in good and tenantable repair is not attributable to the discharge by the tenant of any responsibility incumbent on the landlord". The Clause provides that where the landlord is responsible for repairs he is entitled to recover an increase of rent of 25 per cent. from the tenant provided that the conditions set out in Section 16 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, are fulfilled. The conditions laid down in Section 16 of that Act are that the dwelling-house must be in good and tenantable repair and not in any other respect unfit for human habitation. But there is a paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that Section which says: if in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act the landlord has produced satisfactory evidence that work to the value specified in the Schedule has been carried out upon the dwelling-house during the period so specified… and so on. That paragraph, which has been omitted from the Bill, lays down that the landlord must provide evidence or proof of expenditure incurred in carrying out the repairs. It is very significant that that paragraph has been omitted. We are now giving the landlord a 25 per cent. increase in rent without asking him to produce any evidence or proof of repairs.

In Scotland there are about 700,000 houses to which the 1954 Act applies. That Act was described by our present Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, as "Operation Rescue". Let us see what or whom it rescued. Of the 700.000 houses to which the Act applies I find that a little over 2 per cent. had repairs carried out to them. The landlords of those houses received the 40 per cent. increase.

7.15 p.m.

In the light of that fact we are entitled to ask ourselves what reasons prevented the factors and property owners from carrying out more extensive repairs than they have done. I submit that the first reason is that the vast majority of those houses are beyond repair. No amount of money would ever render them fit to he described as in good and tenantable repair. I reckon that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 such houses in Scotland. Indeed, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, have a knowledge of the vast numbers of these tenemental properties in Scotland—these festering slums and blots upon the landscapes of our great cities. These properties are held together by six or seven layers of wallpaper. In fact, if the tenants did rock 'n' roll "the buildings would join them. That is the only way in which I can describe these houses.

The second reason is that the houses which were repairable have been repaired by the tenants themselves. It is common knowledge that tens of thousands of Scots people take great care of and pride in their homes. They have carried out repairs to windows and window sashes; they have carried out plumbing work, or have paid for it to be done; they have installed modern fireplaces, carried out interior decoration and installed electric light—all at their own expense. It was because tenants carried out these repairs themselves that landlords were unable to give any evidence or proof of the expenditure of money upon their houses and were thus unable to qualify for the 40 per cent. increase provided for in the Act.

How have the Government expressed their gratitude to those citizens for taking care of their own homes? They have said, "As your reward we shall give a gift to the landlords of a 25 per cent. increase in rent." Indeed, in Committee the Joint Under-Secretary said that one thing this provision would do would be to stiffen the resistance of citizens and prevent them from repairing their own houses. He made that observation in reply to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

The Amendment provides that a landlord would not be allowed this increase where it could be established that his tenant had been entirely responsible for rendering the house in good and tenantable repair. There is nothing unreasonable in the Amendment: it is both reasonable and fair, and I sincerely hope that, upon reflection, the Government will feel disposed to accept it and to recognise that those citizens who take care of and pride in their own homes should be encouraged to do so, and that there should be no reward for the landlords in that respect.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I beg to second the Amendment.

The proposition that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) on this Amendment is quite a simple one. If we take the case of two landlords with comparable properties side by side and neither of whom has done anything to the property, but the tenant of one property has kept it in a good state of repair, his landlord will get a 25 per cent. increase whilst the other landlord will get no increase. Reduced to those terms, it seems quite wrong that one landlord is to benefit as a result of what has been done by the good tenant.

This applies to thousands of houses. The majority of landlords have not kept their houses in a good state of repair. I want to give again the figures for Edinburgh. I gave them during the Committee stage, but they bear repetition. Out of a total of 145,000 houses in Edinburgh roughly 30,000 are owned by local authorities. After deducting those owned by owner-occupiers we have something between 70,000 and 80,000, and of those houses 6,700 are to be demolished. According to Cmd. 9685 there are another 39.000 or 40,000 unfit houses. That means that altogether there must be something like 60 per cent. of the houses recognised by the corporation as unfit.

As I said in the Committee stage, many of those houses will receive the 25 per cent. increase. There are not very many left which were able to qualify for the increase under the 1954 Act. In a great number of cases the landlords were not able to qualify because they had not kept their houses in that state of repair which would qualify for the 40 per cent. increase, and had not spent the necessary sums in maintaining the houses during the previous two years.

Of those which do not qualify, quite a large number have been kept up by private tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central said, some have been beautifully kept by tenants. Tenants have done all the outside paint-work, the plumbing and interior repairs. Many have added considerably to the value of the property by installing fireplaces. I know of dozens of small homes in my constituency where, out of pride in his own home, a tenant has installed new fireplaces or had electric fittings put in, and, as a result, the value of the house has increased. If the landlord obtains control of such a house as a result of a change of tenancy, as he is entitled to do under Clause 10, he can sell the house for probably £200 or £300 more than he could in the first place.

That is simply as a result of the work done by the tenant. Not satisfied with the increased capital value of the landlord's property, we now say that the landlord is to get 25 per cent, increase if the tenant has done this work. Surely that is quite unfair, quite wrong and unjust. I cannot see how the Joint Under-Secretary can justify it. He could not justify it in Committee. We raised the question in a number of different forms in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman looks at his speeches, he will find that he did not answer this at all. All we are suggesting is that, whatever the merits of the other parts of the Bill, we ought at least in this case to try to treat the tenant fairly.

It is all right to say, "Look at the poor landlord. He has not been getting an increase in rent for a great number of years." That is always the story we get. I addressed a meeting the other night on the Bill. Someone in the meeting said that if we took the case of two men who in 1937 each had £600 and one put £600 into National Savings, that would now be worth about £200, but that if the other built a house and let it, instead of his house being worth £600, today it would be worth £1,800. His house would have been paid for during the intervening period.

How is the landlord so ill-done by? The man who has put his money into National Savings has been patriotic. He has done what the Government are bribing people to do. The Government are giving special concessions to people to invest in National Savings as opposed to co-operative societies. The man who did that twenty years ago finds that his money is worth only a third of what it was then, but the landlord still has his capital asset. If the tenant has done anything to improve it, the tenant has added to its value. Why should the landlord be entitled to increase the rent?

I sincerely trust that when he replies the Joint Under-Secretary will not content himself, as so often he does, with reading.a brief prepared by civil servants and not answering the questions which have been raised in the debate. It is a favourite dodge of the hon. Gentleman to come here with a brief and never to attempt to answer the arguments put forward. We want some answers to these arguments tonight. I see that the hon. Gentleman is smiling. I hope he is in a good humour, and that he is going to think kindly of the thousands of tenants in Scotland who will suffer as a result of this provision. I hope he will say, "This is a small concession to make. We think it is fair and are prepared to give it to you."

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

The Joint Under-Secretary, when a similar point to this was raised in Committee, made an attempt to reply. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in saying that the hon. Gentleman did not reply. He made an attempt to reply, but I think I am fair in saying that his attempt to reply was in saying that the Bill is framed on the basis of the respective legal liability for repairs of landlords and tenants, and to depart from the principle in relation to this Measure would create many difficulties in practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February, 1957; c. 548.] We are arguing that the landlord in this case has not fulfilled his legal liabilities, but is to benefit from the efforts of the tenant. It seems that the position which the Bill proposes to make law is that where landlords for many years have defied the law they are to be permitted to benefit from that defiance. A principle on which we in this House should work is that, if possible, no one who defies the law should get away with it. Yet that is exactly what the Bill as at present drafted allows. The Bill is so drafted that so long as the house is in good and tenantable repair, irrespective of who has maintained it in such repair, the 25 per cent. increase can be claimed.

7.30 p.m.

We have quoted cases. I received information about a party who rented a house in the 1930's. The rent when he took over was £31 and it was immediately raised to £50. Since that time, according to him—I have his name and address—he has paid no less than £300 in repairs. The landlord's attitude was that there would be no repairs. The property, which carries a £50 rent, will be decontrolled, and if it is let to some one else the landlord will be able to obtain a substantially higher rent than would have been the case if the present tenant had allowed the house to fall into disrepair, if the present landlord sells the property, bearing in mind that he will have the right to evict the tenant, he will do so at the enhanced value which the tenant has created.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I think proceedings should be taken against such a landlord. The valuation forms which are sent out contain a clause under which he has to return the rental and it asks whether anything has to be added by way of gratiam or repairs done by the tenant not disclosed in the above particulars. For withholding any payments such as gratiam or withholding the fact that there is an underhand arrangement with the tenant to do the repairs, or for giving false information, that landlord is liable to be proceeded against, and I should have no hesitation in setting the wheels in motion.

Mr. Lawson

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

That brings me to the second and only other argument used by the Joint Under-Secretary of State when we were seeking to deal with the matter. We were trying to bring about the position which we are seeking to bring about by this Amendment. The hon. Member said it would be impracticable and would produce so many difficulties that it could not be worked.

He knows that there are provisions in the Bill for tenants who have entered into a legal obligation to undertke a proportion or the whole of the repairs. It seems that where this is known there is no impracticability; it can be done. It seems to me that if it were made an obligation that the landlord should state what he spent on repairs, or give some approximate idea of it, and that the tenant should also state it, then it would become practicable to bring out to what extent, in fact, the landlord had fulfilled his obligations.

The landlords will benefit in very many and probably most of the houses with which we are concerned here. If the landlord can get the 25 per cent. increase he will get it. If he can claim that the house is in good repair, then probably in most cases that will be due to the efforts of the tenant. My hon. Friend pointed out how very few were the landlords who could qualify under the 1954 Act. I think the figure given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State himself was 27,000 houses out of a total of 700.000, which indicates how very few have been the Scottish landlords who have fulfilled their legal obligations to maintain these houses in a state of repair.

The Minister argued on the previous occasion, and will probably argue now, that the tenant is protected by the certificate of disrepair and that if the house is not in a state of repair the rent increase will not be payable. According to the Government, the principal purpose of the Bill is to prevent the decay of houses and to maintain our stock of houses in a proper state of repair. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is one of the chief purposes of the Bill. Yet he himself said previously, and I believe he will say it again, that the tenant's protection is the certificate of disrepair.

In other words, before the Bill becomes operative at all and before any sanction can be applied to the landlord, the purpose of the Bill must be defeated and the house must fall into a state of disrepair. It seems fantastic and illogical that while we are told that the purpose of the Bill is to maintain our stock of houses in a state of repair, in fact the only sanction which the Bill carries in this connection becomes operative only when the house is in disrepair.

The whole logic of this is to induce the tenant to allow the house to fall into disrepair, that being the only circumstance in which he can bring any pressure to bear on the landlord. That is fantastic, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give us much more reasonable arguments than those when he replies to our Amendment.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I am disappointed that the Minister has not risen to accept the Amendment, because I cannot for the life of me think of any Amendment which could be more reasonable and more in keeping with the spirit of the Clause. As it stands, the Clause gives landlords of rent-restricted property in Scotland the right to raise the rent by 25 per cent. provided certain conditions arc met. One of them is that the conditions justifying a rent increase under the 1954 Act are applicable—that the house is in good and tenatable repair.

If the fact that the house is in good and tenantable repair is due to moneys spent not by the person responsible in law, the landlord, but by the person who occupies the house. surely in all fairness a rent increase which would benefit the landlord who had neglected his duty is unjustified. By the Amendment we are giving the Government a chance to get out of a very difficult situation. This is not only a case of rewarding neglect but also a penalty on the tenants who have preserved a property in the pursuit of a decent life. We have pride in our homes.

I remind the Joint Under-Secretary of State that many of the Scottish Members on this side of the House were born and brought up in this kind of property. I was, at any rate. We practically all were, and we know what we are talking about in this matter. The property in which I was born was the property in which my mother was born, and probably the family had occupied it long before then. These houses are 80 and even over 100 years old.

The actual fact of the matter is simply that the landlords are not here asked to prove that they have spent any money on repairs. That is a good job, because the people who are living in the houses know that the landlords have not spent it. That was argued in Committee and was turned down, so we put forward this even more reasonable suggestion, that where it can be shown that the tenants themselves have spent the money that brings the house up to the qualifying conditions, no rent increase should apply.

I saw recently—I think following a recent broadcast or television programme which showed conditions in the Gorbals—two photographs in a Scottish paper of the outside surrounding appearance of houses in the Gorbals. No one ever saw anything more damning of private ownership of property. Then the inside of one of those houses was shown. One might have thought it was a flat in one of the better parts of Glasgow. But that was not due to any expenditure of a single penny by the landlord. It was due to this pride in home that the Scots people have, to make the best of what they have, and to do the repairs that the landlords have not been doing.

If one goes into any of these Scottish homes today, in most cases one will find that they have electric light. That was not provided by the landlord but by the tenant. They have modern grates—not provided by the landlord but by the tenant. The same applies to plumbing. The other day I spoke to a lad in Kilmarnock who is just moving into a new house. In the light of what he will be faced with when this Bill goes through, the changes he was making were really fantastic. The old set-in bed—the hole in-the-wall—has in many cases become a little kitchen or scullery, with a gas cooker—the gas cooker also provided at the expense of the tenant.

In the face of such things, here are the Government actually coming with a Clause like this, asking for no proof that money has been spent in repairs, giving no guarantee that rent increases will depend on repairs, and saying to the tenant who has spent this money to keep the house in good and tenantable condition, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant. You have done so well in spending your own money on this house belonging to someone else that we will allow that someone else to raise your rent by 25 per cent."

Can that be justified at all? We worded this Amendment as reasonably as possible so that even a Tory would be able to understand it and agree with it. It does not go nearly as far as we should like, and if the Joint Under-Secretary, representing the Craigtown Division of Glasgow, can stand at that Box and turn down this Amendment—well, we know that he will be defeated at the next Election, and he will be just making doubly sure that he will no longer occupy a place in this assembly after that Election.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I am glad to see that the Lord Advocate is here to reinforce the Minister because, as we all know, the Lord Advocate has a long experience of the law relating to landlord and tenant, the law of contract, and the law relating to eviction, which has caused so many agonies to tenants and, perhaps, gratification to landlords. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bring that long experience to bear upon the consideration of this Amendment.

The Amendment is designed to supply that which is missing from this Clause, to rectify it, arid to ensure what, I am sure, the Lord Advocate would desire—that justice should be done between landlord and tenant. It will be noticed that. as it stands, the Clause deals with the landlord's rights, but not with the co-relative rights of the tenant. In that way it is overweighted in favour of the landlord. The Amendment is clearly designed to rectify those defects.

7.45 p.m.

Clause 7 enables an increase of rents of controlled houses to be made in Scotland. Up to the present, the tenants of those houses have enjoyed a certain measure of protection and security. This Clause is designed to take away that measure of protection and security, and to give to the landlords a right which they did not possess before. The Amendment is designed to poise, to adjust, to balance the iniquities of the Clause so as to take account of the tenants' rights.

As the Clause stands, justice will not be done as between landlord and tenant. It is expressed to enable an increase of rent to be made by the landlord, whether or not he has done anything to keep the house in repair. But the Clause is even worse than that—it goes a little further, and deals with the case where the landlord is under covenant to keep the house in repair and does not do so.

The Amendment takes into account the situation where the landlord, being under an obligation to keep the house in repair and not doing so, the tenant takes over that responsibility, and does so, not necessarily to enhance the landlord's security, but, no doubt, for his own comfort and security as a tenant. If that happens, the landlord should not be entitled to benefit from it and to derive an advantage from two things; first, the fact that he has not carried out this covenant to repair and to keep in repair, and, secondly, that the tenant has, in fact, taken over the landlord's responsibility, has carried it out and has thereby enhanced the landlord's security.

As the House will see, the Clause as it stands has two enormities. First, it benefits the landlord for not doing that which he is bound to do under covenant. Secondly, it penalises the tenant for enhancing the value of the landlord's property by doing certain repairs to it. Manifestly, that is wrong and unjust, and the Amendment is designed to right that wrong and to remove that injustice.

No doubt this Clause, like the whole of this Bill, arises from the inordinate cost of living under which both landlord and tenant are at present living, but it is manifestly wrong that the cost of living, which weighs heavily on both landlord and tenant, should be used as an excuse to ameliorate and improve the condition of the landlord and to deteriorate and disimprove the position of the tenant. Nevertheless, that is indeed what this Clause does. Therefore, as it stands, it is wrong and requires this Amendment to rectify it.

For the sake of simplicity, may I just refer to the essential words in this Clause in order to enforce my argument? I shall leave out certain words and read the bare skeleton of the Clause. The words I shall read are: Where a dwelling-house in Scotland is subject to a controlled tenancy, and the landlord is responsible, … for the repair of the dwelling-house, then, … if and so long as the conditions justifying an increase of rent, … are fulfilled, the rent recoverable from the tenant shall… be increased … Our Amendment is designed to insert after the word "fulfilled" these words which take account of the rights of the tenant which are completely ignored in the Clause. We seek to insert after the word "fulfilled" the words: and the maintenance of the dwelling-house in good and tenantable repair is not attributable to the discharge by the tenant of any responsibility incumbent on the landlord". The Clause, as it stands, will enable the landlord to take advantage of the tenant's work, to take advantage of the fact that the tenant has repaired the premises and has enhanced the landlord's security and capital. This is manifestly wrong. The co-relative is left out of the Clause. The landlord's rights are put in and enforced, while the tenant's rights are left out and ignored. This is plainly injustice.

The Lord Advocate has long experience of the law of landlord and tenant, of the harrowing administration of the Rent Restriction Acts, and this experience, together with his knowledge of the law of contract as between landlord and tenant, will teach him, I have no doubt, to realise that justice demands that the rights of both landlord and tenant should be equipoised and balanced. They are not balanced in the Clause as it stands, but they will be balanced if this beneficial Amendment is accepted.

Mrs. Mann

There have been many contradictions in these Acts in regard to the maintenance of a dwelling-house. If what my hon. Friends have been saying is all true, there are many tenants in Scotland who could raise an action against the owners of property. It is not, perhaps, generally known—it may be that one has to be an owner to know—that every year, in the valuation form which an owner signs on soul and conscience, there appears the rent, and then, in order that no owner may impose other conditions such as a requirement to keep the property in good and habitable repair for the landlord and obtain hidden payments in that way, any arrangement for repair come to between the parties must be declared upon the valuation form. For instance, let us suppose that the rent is £20, but that the tenant, either with or without an understanding, executes £10 worth of repairs a year, that £10 for the landlord ought to be declared to the valuation authority. If the owner has not so declared it, he has committed an offence.

It would appear that these repairs are being carried out, but we must be clear in our minds what is keeping the property in tenantable repair and what is merely an improvement such as improving a grate by taking away an old interior and putting in a new one. That is not considered to be a repair, although it does improve the property. I should like to know what the views are of those tenants who have actually repaired the pipes instead of sending for a plumber. A tenant of mine just sends for the plumber; he never consults me. He sends for the builder and the others. Where that is done and a tenant bears the cost himself, there is no occasion whatever for charging him the extra 25 per cent.

I find another contradiction in the Act of 1954. In that Measure the Government went to the extreme of insisting on a two-fifths expenditure by the owner before any increase was to be permitted whereas in the Bill they have gone to the opposite extreme and are permitting by this Clause a 25 per cent. increase without the landlord having to fulfil any condition as regards maintaining the dwelling-house in good and tenantable repair.

Since 1923, when the Rent Restriction Act permitted a 47½ per cent. increase in Scotland, there has been a feeling of grievance among tenants. That 47½ per cent. permitted 15 per cent. in respect of extra interest and mortgage charges, etc., 25 per cent. in respect of repairs, and 7½ per cent. in respect of increasing owners' rates. The grievance was that the condition attached to the 25 per cent. in respect of repairs was never adhered to. The money was lifted, but it was never spent on repairs. We are now trying to redress that grievance, and I hope that our Amendment will be accepted.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne)

I will deal, first of all, with one or two points which have been raised before dealing with the main issue. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke about the Gorbals houses. I have seen them myself. I used to tell the hon. Lady the Member for the Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) that the houses in Govan were as bad as they were in the Gorbals, but when I had seen them I had to admit that these were worse. Surely, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock cannot believe that the Bill would affect that kind of house. It cannot possibly do so.

Mr. Ross

Why not?

Mr. Browne

Because such a house would never qualify for other than a certificate of disrepair.

Mr. Ross

Are we to understand that all the houses in the Gorbals have got certificates of disrepair?

Mr. Browne

No, but I am referring to houses of the type which he was describing to the House. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a case on a false premise, and it is quite wrong to base anything——

Mr. Willis

Surely, the hon. Gentleman will not——

Mr. Browne

Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish? No such point against this Bill can be argued on that type of house, which the Glasgow Corporation is trying to pull down.

Mr. Willis

There is no certificate of disrepair unless the tenant applies for it. We discussed all this at great length in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman must know that a great many of the people who live in these houses know nothing about certificates of disrepair or applying for them, or anything of that sort.

Mr. Browne

But a tenant has not got to apply for a certificate of disrepair unless the landlord asks for an increase. I am sure that nobody who knows the area can conceive of any landlord asking for an increase for that type of house.

Mr. Willis

Of course we can.

Mr. Ross

May I make it clear that I addressed myself entirely to the point of considering whether the conditions justifying the increase had been fulfilled. I did not refer to these houses in the Gorbals at all. In fact, my reference to the Gorbals was only to a house which was in good condition because of the efforts of the tenant.

Mr. Browne

If I have taken the hon. Gentleman up wrongly, I apologise. I shall see in HANSARD tomorrow what it was he said.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that a little over 2 per cent. of our Scottish houses had been repaired under the 1954 Act. The hon. Gentleman is unlikely to put himself in the position of being corrected by his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), but the hon. Member for Motherwell knows the correct figure at the latest convenient date, which is 27,000 out of 700,000, not 2 per cent., but between 3 and 4 per cent. [Interruption.] Well, it is nearly twice as much.

Mr. Willis

"Operation Rescue."

Mr. Browne

It was a little rescue.

Mr. Willis

Very little.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Browne

The hon. Member for Motherwell saw something ridiculous in the certificate of disrepair procedure. I did my best to try to follow him. Surely, the best system for getting our Scottish houses put into and kept in repair is the carrot of a rent increase and the stick of a certificate of disrepair to take it away if the house is not fit. I could not follow the hon. Member's argument at all.

The hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) had in mind the doubt that is in the minds of many of us in connection with the Amendment. In discussing the Amendment, it is important to appreciate the type of repair that is necessary to bring a house into good and tenantable repair and fitness for human habitation. No doubt, a good many Scottish tenants have spent quite a deal of money on their houses——

Mr. Ross

They certainly have.

Mr. Browne

—but most of the money has been spent—we have all done this—on minor repairs and improvements for the tenant's own comfort and convenience. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central talked about wallpaper keeping the houses from falling down. Really, he knows that wallpaper is not the responsibility of the landlord and that many of these repairs done by the tenant fall into disrepair in a comparatively short number of years. Such repairs may, indeed, have improved the house as a pleasant dwelling-house. The tenant has spent money on them and has enjoyed, and is enjoying, the results of his expenditure. That is what money is for.

My point is that even if this money had not been spent by the tenant, even if many of these repairs—I am not saying all of them—had not been done, the house still might be in good repair and fit for human habitation.

Mr. Willis

It is very doubtful.

Mr. Browne

In a typical, well-maintained Scottish property—[Interruption.] Yes, there are well-maintained Scottish properties, far more of them than this debate would lead one to think.

Mr. McInnes

Monuments in the cemetery.

Mr. Ross

Even they are not in good repair.

Mr. Browne

I credit the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, who is a constituent of mine, with knowing far more about housing conditions in Scotland than one would imagine after reading his speech. In typical well-maintained Scottish houses, the landlord regularly carries out the more costly repairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to which no reference has been made in this instance—repairs to the fabric of the building, to the roof, to the common property, the stairs and the entries. That is big money that the landlord has spent and for which the tenant has had no responsibility whatever.

Mr. Ross

Why only 3 per cent. in the 1954 Act?

Mr. Browne

That is one of the reasons for the Clauses that we are now discussing.

The Amendment does not, therefore, alter the position either for the good landlord or for the industrious tenant such as I have described.

Mrs. Alice Cullen (Glasgow, Gorbals)

Does the hon. Gentleman know of good landlords?

Mr. Browne

Yes——

Mrs. Cullen

I do not.

Mr. Browne

—good and helpful landlords. There may be cases where the tenant, of his own volition, has done some repairs that should legally have been carried out by the landlord—that is true. It would be very unusual if the landlord himself had not also done as much as he could afford to do in the house.

Mrs. Mann

The hon. Gentleman is confusing the matter of landlordism in Scotland. The individual landlord is usually quite fair, but we are not dealing with individual landlords. We are dealing with vast agents who own great parts of Glasgow and in whom the individual touch is completely missing.

Mr. Browne

I have no experience except of Scottish landlords and I have found that these big companies have been extremely helpful and, in a great many cases, have done a great deal to try to keep the houses in repair under extremely difficult conditions.

The very fact that one tenant may have done something that the landlord should have done does not mean that the landlord has done nothing. Very often, he has done all he could afford to do. I agree that a few have failed to do what they ought to have done, but it would be difficult in legislation to pick out those few who have failed to do what they ought to have done and who could have afforded to do it. If the landlord had not done some work, the house by now would be in such a state of disrepair, normally speaking, that any idea of obtaining an increase in rent would be quite out of the question.

Mr. Willis

Really.

Mr. Browne

It is true.

Mr. McInnes

The hon. Gentleman is deliberately ignoring the kernel of the problem. We confess that 400,000 or 500,000 houses are not in good and tenantable repair in Scotland, leaving another 300,000 or 400,000 houses that are in good and tenantable repair. Why, then, have only 27,000 of them been repaired by the landlords? What is the explanation for the difference? If the hon. Gentleman wants the answer, it is obvious that the tenants themselves have done all the repairs.

Mr. Browne

Oh, no. First, the landlords had not the money to do the repairs, and, secondly——

Mr. Willis

What did they do with it?

Mr. Browne

—the grave deterrent of going back to the 1914 rent made it not worth the landlord's while to do it at all. That, however, is the subject of a later Amendment, and if I can get on we might be able to reach that Amendment.

One of the main reasons for the Bill is that if we are to have houses put into repair, and, what is more, kept in repair, the rent must be reasonably adequate, In spite of everything that has been said, I do not believe that the average Scottish tenant is opposed to paying a slightly higher rent for a good house. [Interruption.] The maximum rent increase that we are discussing is 3s. 10d. a week and the average rent increase is less than 2s. a week. I say again that where the tenant has helped the landlord in the past by doing some of the basic repairs which the landlord should have carried out, I would expect the tenant's attitude to harden to the extent of expecting the landlord to carry out his obligations.

Mr. Willis

There is nothing in the Bill about it.

Mr. Browne

People are human, if the landlord wants his increased rent to continue——

Mr. Willis

The hon. Gentleman is saying something with which we on this side have not so far disagreed. He is putting up an Aunt Sally to knock down himself. He suggests that the tenant does not mind paying 2s. a week more provided he gets the repairs done. We have not disagreed with that. All we have suggested is that where the landlord is not doing the repairs, the tenant should not pay the 2s. Where the tenant is paying for the repairs, he should not have to pay twice, in the rent and in the repairs. Secondly, where in the Bill is there any guarantee that the money will be used to keep the premises in repair?

Mr. Browne

Had the hon. Member been listening, he would know I had been addressing myself to the difficulty of drawing a dividing line between one type of property and another. The hon. Member asks where in the Bill there is anything to say that the money has to be spent on the house. Surely, he knows that if money is not spent on the house, it will deteriorate and that if the landlord fails to spend money on the house, he will no longer qualify for the increased rent.

Mrs. Cullen

That is because of the deterioration.

Mr. Browne

Whether the landlord is responsible wholly or in part for the repairs is a legal question. It depends on the terms of the contract, but under Section 23 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, applied to the 1957 Act increase by Clause 8 of the Bill, unless the tenant is under express liability to carry out repairs, the landlord is deemed wholly responsible for them. The hon. Member for Motherwell made a significant point. He said that the landlords had evaded the law over the years. Surely, is it not the duty of the House, if such conditions have applied, to create new conditions to stop that state of affairs? If the Rent Restriction Acts have had that effect, is it not our job as the House of Commons to put the matter right?

Mr. Ross

By giving the landlords an extra 25 per cent. rent?

Mr. Lawson

We are trying to settle into the Clause a provision that where the repairs are carried out by the tenant the landlords shall not benefit. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Browne

So are we, but we disagree with the hon. Member that he has the best way of doing it.

he Amendment seeks to relieve the tenant of the consequences of something he may have done but has not contracted to do.

Mr. Ross

Not "may."

Mr. Browne

All right then, something he did that he did not contract to do, but landlords under the Bill have better conditions and more means and more incentive to fulfil their obligations. Furthermore, it would be in practice very difficult to define and explain to the satisfaction of the tenant, and certainly to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, the correct dividing line between those repairs which the landlord should have done and those which do not fall into that category. I have tried to answer all the points and I am sure that after such a clear exposition of what is wrong with the Amendment the Opposition will consider withdrawing it.

Mr. Douglas Johnston (Paisley)

I feel that my hon. Friends will regret not only the reply but the reasons advanced for the reply, because, having listened to the Joint Under-Secretary with some care, I find that four-fifths of his reply did not in any way relate to the Amendment.

Mr. Browne

It is very difficult for me, because if I replied to the Amendment only I should not be able to reply to the speeches, and hon. Members would have something then to complain about.

Mr. Johnston

The hypothesis on which the proposed Amendment proceeds is that the house is in good and tenantable repair. All it seeks to do is to provide that if the tenant has been the means by which the house has been kept in good and tenantable repair, he shall be rewarded for that rather than that the landlord should be rewarded. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary appreciates that.

Surely, it is wholly inequitable that a landlord should be entitled to this 25 per cent. increase in rent if the increase is not due to his fulfilling his legal obligation to keep the house in tenantable repair but is the result of the tenant fulfilling the landlord's obligation. I feel sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will agree that that is an inequitable result. If it is inequitable, why not provide that the landlord shall not receive that increase?

Mr. Browne

Would the hon. and learned Member address himself to the point that the landlord has to keep the house in good repair also?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Johnston

I concede, of course, that the landlord is under an obligation, but the hypothesis of the argument is that he has not fulfilled that obligation in the past and there is no express obligation upon him to do so in the future. The hon. Gentleman might reply that there is and that the sanction, if the landlord does not keep the house in good repair, is the sanction of a certificate of disrepair.

Mr. Browne indicated assent.

Mr. Johnston

I notice that the hon. Gentleman nods his head, but he knows as well as I do that the certificate of disrepair procedure has been in existence since the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919. It has not worked for various reasons. One reason is that the tenants have not known about it. The second is that in many cases tenants have been afraid to operate it. A third reason is that landlords have said, "We can do what we like. We do not intend to make the repairs." It is in those circumstances that the tenant has undertaken the repairs which were the obligation of the landlord, with the result that the house is now in good and tenantable repair, and that if the Amendment be not accepted the reward will go to the landlord rather than to the tenants.

I submit that that is a wholly inequitable result. I understand that the only justification put forward for it is that it is administratively difficult to decide what would be the landlord's repairs and what would be the tenant's, and that in those circumstances we have just got to put up with the inequity. That reply, of course, is not satisfactory, because there is already a provision in subsection (4) of the Clause that any question arising as to whether the landlord was responsible for repair or whether it was the tenant's responsibility shall be decided, in the event of there being no agreement between them, by the sheriff. That Clause is very apt to decide the very point now put forward in the Amendment, which is who in fact did the repairs that kept the house in being and in good an tenantable condition. It is a pure question of fact which could easily be decided by the sheriff.

Mr. Browne indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston

Why not? Why should it not be possible to decide who repaired the roof, who repaired the rone pipes, who put the new window in and who supplied new sashes? Suppose that a landlord went to the court and said, "It is true that I have not done any repairs in the last thirty years", as many landlords have not done, and the tenant were able to say, "I paid Mr. X and Mr. Y, the tradesmen who carried out the repairs to the roof and to the rone pipes."

Mr. Browne indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is not enough to shake his head. He must give reasons.

Mr. Browne

The hon. and learned Member raises so many doubts about whether the landlord or the tenant repaired the roof or the rone pipes and so on. How would one put all that into legislation?

Mr. Johnston

I should have thought that that was a question of fact and that if the landlord was unable to prove that he had carried out the repairs he could not be entitled to the increase in rent. The courts are accustomed to carry out investigations of facts as complicated and, indeed, somewhat more complicated every day. This is a matter of fact very capable of being decided by the sheriff. It is just as capable of being decided by him as those questions which are remitted to him under subsection (4) of this very Clause. I do not accept an administrative difficulty which is a pure figment of the imagination of the Joint Under-Secretary as being a good excuse for committing what is obviously an inequity on the tenant.

I should have thought that a still better reason for accepting the Amendment was this. It is, as I understand it, the Government's policy behind this Bill that repairs should be completed to houses. I take it that that is their view. It really does not very much matter to anyone who does these repairs. What is important is that the repairs should be done——

Mr. Browne

And continue to be done.

Mr. Johnston

—and continue to be done. It is quite clear from the past history of housing in Scotland that very few landlords will do repairs. There are various reasons for that, and I do not think that the fact that rents are to be increased would encourage landlords to do any more repairs than they have done in the past, or have done under the 1954 Act. I think that is quite clear. It would, however, encourage tenants to do the repairs if they knew that if, as a result of doing the repairs, they were not to be penalised, but, under the provisions of this Clause as unamended, they are to be penalised, because they are to have their rents increased.

I should have thought that in these circumstances the Government would

have accepted this Amendment with alacrity and enthusiasm, because it does follow what we understand are the basic ideas behind this Clause, and I regret very much that the Government will not do so. I can only hope that they will think again, and that the Joint Under-Secretary will now get up and say that he will reconsider the matter because he is unwilling that an injustice should be done to tenants and is anxious that houses should be put in repair. I notice that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can only assume from that that what he is most anxious to do is what I have long suspected—not to keep houses in repair, but to provide another 25 per cent. for landlords under this Clause, irrespective of what is done at all. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well, as I know, that very few landlords will spend money on houses, and that still fewer tenants will risk the displeasure of their landlords by seeking to get certificates of disrepair.

For myself, I can only regard this Clause, unless it be amended in the way I have suggested, as a gift of another 25 per cent. to landlords, in the same way as there was a gift of some 40 per cent. under the 1919 Act.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 269.

Division No. 84.] AYES [8.22 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Edelman, M.
Albu, A. H. Callaghan, L. J. Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Carmichael, J. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Champion, A. J. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Awbery, S. S. Chapman, W. D. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Bacon, Miss Alice Chetwynd, G. R. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Baird, J. Coldrick, W. Fernyhough, E.
Balfour, A. Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Frenburgh, W.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Finch, H. J.
Bence C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Fletcher, Eric
Benn, Hrt. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) Cove, W. G. Forman, J. C.
Benson, G. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Beswick, Frank Cronin, J. D. Gibson, C. W.
Blackburn, F. Crossman, R. H. S. Goooh, E. G.
Blenkinsop, A. Cullen, Mrs. A. Greenwood, Anthony
Blyton, W. R. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Boardman, H. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Grey, C. F.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Davies, Harold (Leek) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Bowles, F. G. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Boyd, T. C. Deer, G. Hamilton, W. W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth de Freitas, Geoffrey Hannan, W.
Brockway, A. F. Delargy, H. J. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Dodds, N. N. Hastings, S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Donnelly, D. L. Hayman, F. H.
Burke, W. A. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Healey, Denis
Burton, Miss F. E. Dye, S. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Herbison, Miss M.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Mellish, R. J. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Holman, P. Messer, Sir F. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Holmes, Horace Mitchison, G. R. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Monslow, W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints) Moody, A. S. Sorensen, R. W.
Hoy, J. H. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Hubbard, T. F. Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm.S.) Sparks, J. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mort, D. L. Steele, T.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Moss, R. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Moyle, A. Stonehouse, J. T.
Hunter, A. E. Mulley, F. W. Stones, W. (Consett)
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) O'Brien, Sir Thomas Swingler, S. T.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Oliver, G. H. Sylvester, G. O.
Janner, B. Orbach, M. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Oswald, T. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jeger, George (Goole) Owen, W. J. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs.S.) Padley, W. E. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Paget, R. T. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Thornton, E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Palmer, A. M. F. Timmons, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Panneil, Charles (Leeds, W.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Pargiter, G. A. Viant, S. P.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Parker, J. Warbey, W. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Parkin, B. T. Watkins, T. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Paton, John Weitzman, D.
King, Dr. H. M. Peart, T. F. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Lawson, G. M. Pentland, N. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Ledger, R. J. Plummer, Sir Leslie West, D. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Popplewell, E. Wheeldon, W. E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Probert, A. R. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Lewis, Arthur Proctor, W. T. Wigg, George
Lindgren, G. S. Pryde, D. J. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
MacColl, J. E. Randall, H. E. Wilkins, W. A.
McGhee, H. G. Rankin, John Willey, Frederick
McGovern, J. Redhead, E. C. Williams, David (Neath)
Mclnnes, J. Reeves, J. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Reid, William Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
MacDermot, Niall Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.) Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Mahon, Simon Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H. Ross, William Woof, R. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Royle, C. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Mann, Mrs. Jean Short, E. W.
Mason, Roy Shurmer, P. L. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mayhew, C. P. Silverman, Julius (Aston) Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Pearson.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Bossom, Sir Alfred Dance, J. C. G.
Aitken, W. T. Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Davidson, Viscountess
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Deedes, W. F.
Alport, C. J. M. Boyle, Sir Edward Digby, Simon Wingfield
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Braine, B. R. Doughty, C. J. A.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) du Cann, E. D. L.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Arbuthnot, John Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Armstrong, C. W. Bryan, P. Duthie, W. S.
Ashton, H. Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Butcher, Sir Herbert Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Atkins, H. E. Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Campbell, Sir David Farey-Jones, F. W.
Baldwin, A. E. Carr, Robert Fell, A.
Balniel, Lord Cary, Sir Robert Finlay, Graeme
Barber, Anthony Channon, Sir Henry Fisher, Nigel
Barter, John Chichester-Clark, R. Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Fort, R.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Conant, Maj. sir Roger Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdair)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Cooke, Robert Freeth, Denzil
Bennett, F. M, (Torquay) Cooper, A. E. Garner-Evans, E. H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Cooper-Key, E. M, George, J. C. (Pollok)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gibson-Watt, D.
Bidgood, J. C. Corfield, Capt. F. V. Godber, J. B.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthome) Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Crouch, R. F. Goodhart, P. C.
Bishop, F. P. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Cower, H. R.
Black, C. W. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Graham, Sir Fergus
Body, R. F. Cunningham, Knox Green, A,
Boothby, Sir Robert Currie, G. B. H. Gresham Cooke, R.
Grimond, J. Leburn, W. G Raikes, Sir Victor
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Rawlinson, Peter
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfleld) Redmayne, M.
Crsvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Rees-Davies, W. R
Gurden, Harold Linstead, Sir H. N. Remnant, Hon. P
Hall, John (Wycombe) Llewellyn, D. T Renton, D. L. M
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E) Ridsdale, J. E
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Rippon, A. G. F.
Harris, Rader (Heston) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Robson-Brown, W
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Roper, Sir Harold
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V (Macclesfd) McAdden, S. J Russell, R. S.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Macdonald, Sir Peter Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Harvey-Watt, Sir George Maokie, J. H. (Galloway) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.'
Hay, John McLaughlin, Mrs. P Sharpies, R. C
Heaid, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel McLean, Neil (Inverness) Shepherd, William
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Heskcth, R. F Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W Maddan, Martin Speir, R. M
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. {Kons'gt'n, S)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R Stevens, Geoffrey
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Marlowe, A. A. H. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hobson, J. G. S (War'ck & Leam'gtn) Marshall, Douglas Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife,E,)
Holland-Martin, C. J Mathew, R. Storey, S
Hope, Lord John Maude, Angus Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Hornby, R. P Mawby, R. L Studholme, Sir Henry
Horobin, Sir lan Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. Summers, Sir Spencer
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Medlicott, Sir Frank Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lves) Mllligan, Rt. Hon. W. R Temple, John M.
Howard, John (Test) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J Moore, Sir Thomas Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C Morrison, John (Salisbury) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Hulbert, Sir Norman Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Hutchison, Sir lan Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Nabarro, G. D. N. Turner, H. F. L.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Nairn, D. L. S Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hyde, Montgomery Neave, Airey Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hylton-Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Harry Nicholls, Harmar Vane, W. M. F
lremonger, T. L. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
lrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nioolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Viokers, Miss Joan
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Nugent, G. R. H. Wade, D. W.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Oakshott, H. D Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C
Joseph, Sir Keith Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Kaberry, D. Osborne, C Webbe, Sir H
Keegan, D. Page, R. C Whitelaw, W.S.I (Penrith & Border)
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Kerr, H. W Partridge, E Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Kershaw, J. A. Peyton, J. W. W. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Kimball, M. Pike, Miss Mervyn Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kirk, P. M Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Wood, Hon. R
Lagden, G. W Pitt, Miss E. M. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Lambert, Hon. G Pott, H. P
Lancaster, Col. C. G Powell, J. Enoch TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Langford-Holt, J. A. Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.) Mr. R. Thompson and
Leavey, J. A. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L Mr. Brooman-White