§ Amendment made: In page 24, line 17, leave out "him" and insert "the tenant".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
§ Mr. H. Brooke
I beg to move, in page 24, line 21, at the end, to insert:(3) Where for the purposes of section ten of this Act the rateable value of the dwelling
|5||5.—(1) Where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies, then if the tenant gives up dossession of the dwelling-house at the end of the tenancy therein mentioned, or on ceasing to retain possession by virtue of this Schedule, he shall be entitled, if he has made a claim for the purpose at any time before giving up possession, to be paid by his landlord compensation in respect of any improvement on the dwelling-house, not being a fixture which he is by law entitled to remove, which on his giving up possession adds to the value of the dwelling-house, being an improvement made by him, by any other person who retained possession of the dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule, or by any other person being a tenant under the said statutory or controlled|
|10||tenancy, and completed after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five.|
|15||(2) The sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed the net addition to the value of the dwelling-house as a whole which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement, allowance being made for any benefits which may have been received from the landlord or his predecessors in title in consideration expressly or impliedly of the improvement; and in determining the amount of the said net addition regard shall be had to the purposes for which it is intended that the dwelling-house shall be used after possession has been given up, and if it is shown that it is intended to demolish or to make structural alterations in the dwelling-house or any part thereof or to use it for a different purpose, regard shall be had to the effect of such demolition,|
|20||alteration or change of use on the additional value attributable to the improvement, and to the length of time likely to elapse between the giving up of possession and the demolition, alteration or change of use.|
|25||(3) In determining the amount of compensation under this paragraph regard shall be had to any diminution in the value of any other property belonging to the same landlord, or to any superior landlord from whom the immediate landlord directly or indirectly holds, which is the direct result of the improvement.|
|30||(4) No compensation shall be payable under this paragraph if the improvement is one of a kind for which a claim for compensation may be made under section one of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, or if the person by whom the improvement was made was under an obligation to make it in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, or if the improvement was made in breach of the terms of the controlled tenancy, or if before the completion thereof the landlord notified the person by whom it was made, in writing, that the landlord objected to the improvement.|
§ house falls to be ascertained by apportionment, no notice shall be served under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph until the apportionment has been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
§ This Amendment is designed to meet a point which arose in Committee on an Amendment moved, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The debate ranged widely, and I promised to consider carefully what was said. I am sure that it is desirable that we should make this Amendment, the effect of which is that where, to ascertain whether a part of a house is or is not decontrolled by subsection (1) of Clause 10, it is necessary to apportion the rateable value of the house, the house will be treated as controlled until the apportionment has been obtained. I think the point is clear, and, as far as I am aware, quite uncontroversial.
§ Mr. Mitchison
On this side of the House, we agree with the proposal, as we had, if I remember rightly, a similar proposal to offer during the Committee stage.
§ Amendment agreed to.1265
|35||(5) Any question whether compensation is payable under this paragraph, or as to the amount of any such compensation, shall be determined by the county court; and if the court determines that, on account of the intention to demolish or alter, or to change the use of, the dwelling-house, no compensation or a reduced amount of compensation shall be paid, the court may authorise a further application for compensation to be made by the claimant if effect is not given to the intention within such time as may be|
|40||fixed by the court.|
|45||(6) Where the landlord is himself a tenant of the dwelling-house, he may recover from his landlord such part (if any) of any compensation payable by him under this paragraph as may be agreed between the parties or determined by the county court to be just having regard to the terms of his tenancy, and in particular the length of the unexpired term thereof, and to all other relevant circumstances; and the foregoing provisions of this sub-paragraph shall apply in relation to sums recoverable thereunder as they apply to compensation under this paragraph.|
|50||(7) Section thirteen of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927 (which confers power to apply and raise capital money for the payment of compensation under that Act), shall apply to compensation or other sums (including costs, charges and expenses) payable by a landlord by virtue of this paragraph as it applies to such compensation and other sums as are mentioned in that section.|
§ This is a lengthy Amendment, and it deals with a matter to which I think the House should attach some importance. It was raised in Committee upstairs by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who called attention to the case where a tenant who has to give up occupation of premises as a result of decontrol has made improvements to the property. In Committee, I undertook to produce an Amendment in suitable form on Report, and the effect of this Amendment is that a tenant of a decontrolled house will be entitled, before giving up possession, to claim compensation in respect of any improvements made by him or his predecessor in a controlled tenancy.
§ There are, of course, conditions attached. In fact, I am wrong in saying "any improvements"; they are improvements which satisfy or do not contravene certain conditions. The amount of the compensation will be the addition to the value of the house which is attributable to the improvement, less, of course, the value of any benefit that has been received from the landlord in respect of the improvement. The obvious case there is that the landlord himself may have contributed towards the cost.
§ The Amendment also provides that the improvement must have been completed after August, 1945. It is so unlikely that improvements will have been made during the war that, for all practical purposes, that really takes us back to 1939. The fact of an improvement having been made and the amount of the compensation to be paid for it are matters to be agreed between the landlord and the tenant. If the landlord and tenant disagree, of course, that is a matter which can be determined by the county court.1266
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ As I indicated, various rules are laid down in the Amendment covering the right to compensation and the amount of payment. For example, obviously no compensation is or should be payable if the improvement was carried out in breach of a covenant, or if the landlord objected in writing to the improvement being made before it was completed. If the House will look at paragraph (6) it will be seen that it is there provided that if the landlord himself is a tenant he is entitled to recover from his superior landlord that proportion of the compensation which he has to pay.
§ For the interest of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies I would point out that the Amendment applies to Scotland, subject, however, to the adaptation made by a later Government Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ From the discussions during the Committee stage, I believe that it was generally accepted that we should make a provision of this kind in the Bill for the benefit of the tenant who has to leave his house or flat, but has made material improvements to the property. I hope that the House will agree that the words which we have devised fulfil that need.
§ Mr. Hay
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 9, to leave out, "or controlled".
The Amendment which the Minister has moved is one which will, I think, receive a fairly warm welcome in this House, although I cannot say that it will receive a very warm welcome in some quarters outside. I think it a desirable improvement to make to the Bill. 1267 As my right hon. Friend has explained, the intention is to compensate a tenant who is obliged under the provisions of Clause 10 (1) to vacate a house in which he has been living for some time and to which he may have made improvements. I think it is agreed by those who took part in the Committee stage discussions, and others who have commented on this part of the Schedule, that it is a very desirable Amendment to make.
In moving this Amendment, I am concerned to make sure that we do not go too far. I think we desire to compensate the sitting tenant, the person who has made the improvements. I do not think we should compensate a sitting tenant who has not himself made the improvements. The intention of my Amendment is to try to remove any possibility of that happening. It will be seen that in lines 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of paragraph (1), reference is made to the persons by whom the improvement must be made before compensation can accrue.
First, improvement must have been made by the tenant himself, that is to say, the person who is to be evicted or who must leave the house. The second qualification is that it must have been made by:… any other person who retained possession of the dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule …The third is:…by any other person being a tenant under the said statutory or controlled tenancy …I think that the latter qualifications are intended by the Minister to cover the successor to a statutory tenant, the most normal case being that where a husband who was the statutory tenant has died and his widow is protected in respect of the preceding condition as the successor to his statutory tenancy. That is a situation with which we are all familiar.
I want to ensure that where a lease has been assigned, perhaps through one set of hands or perhaps through several sets of hands, until it arrives in the hands of the person who has to leave under Clause 10, that latter person, the actual tenant at the time, who did not himself make the improvement, shall not be entitled to compensation.
I have chosen to attempt to delete the words "or controlled" because of the 1268 definition of "controlled tenancy" in the Bill. Clause 19, the Interpretation Clause, states that:'controlled tenancy' means a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply or a statutory tenancy …I think it is clear, therefore, that if we delete the words "or controlled" from the Minister's Amendment it would make certain that the right to compensation would accrue only to a statutory tenant or, in the circumstances which I have described, the successor to a statutory tenant. It would remove any risk that a person who was still a contractual tenant—that is, a person holding a lease or tenancy agreement which has not expired or been brought to an end by notice to quit—would be entitled to compensation.
It may be said that this is a somewhat involved way of doing it, but short of redrafting the new paragraph introduced by the Minister, I cannot see any brief way of dealing with the mischief which I feel the House will want to correct. We do not want to give a tenant who is having to leave the property under Clause 10 some entirely uncovenanted benefit for improvements which he himself has not actually made. It may be said, of course, that he may, being in that position, have paid money to his predecessor in title when he took an assignment and that in those circumstances he should be entitled to compensation. That may be, but short of substantially redrafting the paragraph to cover that situation, which has not been possible in the very few days that the Amendment has been on the Order Paper, I think the only thing we can do is to delete the words "or controlled," I feel it is desirable in this case not to give the right to compensation to someone who has not, if I may use such an expression, earned it and that we should rather retain it only for a person who has actually carried out an improvement and is thus rightly entitled to compensation when he leaves.
§ Mr. Mitchison
With the hon. Gentleman, I deplore the difficulties of the Guillotine in these matters. Would not the effect of his Amendment be, among other things, that if Mr. A, a controlled tenant, and the first tenant, dies and the property passes, as it would under the Rent Act, to his widow, then Mrs. A would not fall within these provisions any 1269 longer, because if Mr. A had made improvements he would have been a controlled tenant when he made them?
§ Sir I. Horobin
Not being a lawyer, I hesitate to intervene, but surely in the case which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggests, the widow would be a statutory tenant and the tenant in possession and would qualify under the provision?
§ Mr. Hay
I think my hon. Friend is wrong. I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I hate to have to say that, but I am afraid I must in this case. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made a valid point.
We want to ensure that the person who made the improvement, or his widow or a member of the family succeeding to him, has the right to compensation, but not some stranger. That is really what I am driving at, and I hope that the Amendment will find favour with my right hon. Friend. I accept at once that the words may be inappropriate. If so, I hope that he will say so and will devise appropriate words which can be adopted when the Bill goes to the other place.
§ Mr. Page
I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose in any way to embellish the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I want to express gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Minister for introducing his Amendment. The Amendment which I put on the Order Paper in Committee was based on the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, which applied to business premises. I realise that, in certain circumstances, it was not appropriate, so I am grateful to him for devising an Amendment which fits the case.
This matter is of very great importance to many controlled or statutory tenants. They have relied in the past on being statutory tenants, possibly anticipating that they would be such for some time. They have done improvements to their houses, often even to the extent of building a garage, or putting in a bathroom, 1270 or changing the old kitchen range for a new fixture. In doing so, they have improved the value of the reversion, and it does seem to be unreasonable to allow the landlord to give them notice under Clause 10 and get this windfall represented by those improvements. My right hon. Friend's Amendment would, in fairness to the tenants who have really improved their property, avoid that.
One point which has not yet been mentioned and which may relieve the minds of some landlords is that at the end of sub-paragraph (4) there are set out the cases in which the tenant would not be entitled to claim compensation for improvements——
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
The hon. Member now seems to be addressing himself to the Amendment proposed by the Minister, whereas we are at present considering the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) which, I understand, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has seconded.
§ Mr. H. Brooke
I greatly appreciate the praise which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) managed to get in for my Amendment. I hope to be able to persuade him and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) not to press their Amendment, though I fully realise the excellent purpose which is in their minds in moving it. That purpose is to prevent someone who is a tenant at the time of decontrol from receiving compensation for an improvement carried out by a previous tenant who assigned the tenancy to him.
It appears to my hon. Friends that the tenant at the time of the decontrol may be getting a sort of uncovenanted benefit, but I would ask them to look at it from this point of view. The reason why my Amendment is so drafted, and why improvement is allowed to qualify for compensation even though it has been carried out by a previous tenant, is that a contractual tenant who carries out the improvement is permitted by Section 2 (4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, to charge a premium equivalent to his expenditure on the improvement when he assigns the tenancy. If the tenant at the time of decontrol has had to pay a premium of that character, as will normally be the case, it certainly seems 1271 reasonable that he should be just as much entitled to compensation as if he himself had carried out the improvement. I hope that my hon. Friend, having taken that point into consideration, will feel that he need not press his Amendment to my Amendment.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Hay
With the leave of the House, may I say that I had appreciated the point that my right hon. Friend has just made, and I hoped that I had spoken about it when I moved the Amendment. If it were possible so to do, it would, I think, be a good thing if the new paragraph which the Minister proposes could be altered to ensure that this kind of case is fully covered. I do not think it is right for him to say that it has invariably been the case that people have charged premiums in these circumstances. According to my experience, it is far more usual for tenants who have had a lease and have wished to assign it to charge either for fixtures and fittings or for the lease itself and not to charge a premium for improvements which they have themselves made.
There is a problem here, and despite the explanation—I will not call it a dusty answer—which my right hon. Friend has given as to why he prefers to retain the form of his Amendment, I would ask him to look at it once more. I do not want to take up the time of the House now. This is a guillotined Bill. We on this side are devoted to progress on the Bill, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I do not propose to move either of the Amendments to the Minister's Amendment, having regard to the Guillotine and to certain Amendments which follow.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I hope not to take up very much time about this Amendment, 1272 but it does raise an important issue. We have here the question of Orders under Section 10 (3). That subsection, the House will remember, is the subsection which empowers the Minister, by administrative Order, subject to affirmative Resolution, to decontrol entirely, to decontrol in bits and pieces, to decontrol one part of the country and not another, and so on. On the demerits of such an order, constitutional and other, we have already had some discussion.
Not content with these arbitrary powers, for they are arbitrary powers, which were taken by the Minister in the original draft of the Bill, there were added at a later stage these further arbitrary powers. Under the Bill as it stands up to this point, the Minister would not, as I understand, be allowed to give shorter notice than the famous fifteen months which, under pressure from his own supporters, he substituted for six months in the original draft. What it is sought to do by this provision is, having yielded that much, then more unobtrusively in the middle of the Schedule towards the end of the Bill to take the right to go back to the six months in orders made under subsection (3). There is no justification for it at all.
I object strongly, though I shall not repeat my objections now, to the whole procedure under subsection (3). Why it should be extended not merely to decontrol but to shortening the period of notice which has been found necessary in this case, I fail to understand. After all, there are some limits to what one can do by administrative order even in a Tory Government. What we are coming to now is a situation where the order can not only extend the original provisions of the Bill but can actually vary them. All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman, for all his mild appearance and, no doubt, his monogamous tendencies, beats Henry VIII on some things, and this seems to be a case much in point.
I should have thought that this kind of addition was quite unnecessary and that it was open to all the objections to which the original subsection (3) was open and to a few additional objections on its own. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman, if his tyrannical mind is capable of any thought on this subject at all, to think again whether it really is necessary to 1273 provide for this further extension of the encroachment of the Executive which is proposed by subsection (3) of Clause 10.
§ Mr. Sparks
I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the proposals which have been put before the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be accepted. They refer acutely to the part of Middlesex that I represent, and also to the whole of London and most of our great towns and cities, where the housing problem will not be solved for a very long time. Indeed, the shortage of housing accommodation has existed in London from as long ago as the time of Queen Elizabeth I, when because of the serious shortage of housing accommodation, attempts were made to restrict the number of people coming to London.
The right hon. Gentleman made an alteration in his original proposal for the decontrol of houses by altering the period of six months during which a tenant was to be decontrolled and would enjoy security of tenure to a period of fifteen months. In the main, the right hon. Gentleman's case for the extension of the time to fifteen months was based on the difficulty of tenants of decontrolled property being able, first of all, to adjust themselves to the new circumstances, which, in the main, will mean that a large number of them have to leave their accommodation.
The difficulty of being able to obtain alternative accommodation in London and in the great towns and cities within six months of the passing of the Bill led the Minister to increase the period to fifteen months. He seems to think that at the end of fifteen months it will be possible for people to find alternative accommodation. He is, however, completely misunderstanding—or, at least, does not want to understand—the core of the problem.
If the right hon. Gentleman takes action under Clause 10 (3), as, undoubtedly, he will, and substitutes a period of six months instead of the fifteen months which now appears in the Bill, he will not be taking cognizance of the problem which is likely to exist for a considerable time and, very likely, for the lifetime of most of us here.
1274 Consider, for instance, my own constituency, which is similar to most of the constituencies in London and Greater London. We are a built-up area. It is quite impossible to build any more houses to accommodate people. Under Clause 10 of the Bill, approximately 8,000 houses will go out of control. A minimum of at least 2,000 of them will be tenant-occupied houses. There is not much doubt that the tenants, if they remain in, those houses under new tenancy agreements, will have to pay considerably higher rents than they have hitherto paid if the landlords allow them to remain as tenants. Otherwise, they will have to leave, and the landlords may want to sell the houses.
There is felt in most London constituencies and in our other great towns and cities where there is industrial concentration the pressure of people who want to come into them to live. About 15,000 workpeople come into my constituency every day to work, and many of them would live in my constituency if they could find accommodation, but they just cannot find it. There has been for hundreds of years this tendency of people to want to come from the provinces into London, and it will continue, so far as we can foresee, for a long time yet.
The right hon. Gentleman, if he exercises his powers under Clause 10 (3) to decontrol more houses in built-up areas, will add to the housing problems in the congested areas. If he exercises to the full his powers under that subsection and decontrols all the dwellings remaining controlled, then in my constituency a further 7,500 dwellings which will at first remain controlled will cease to be controlled. If the right hon. Gentleman does that an appalling problem will be created not only in my constituency but elsewhere in London and in the other great towns and cities.
It will mean that more rents can be increased to the very highest limit, that more people can be put out of their homes. The local authorities in the built-up areas are unable to provide accommodation because there is no more land in their areas on which to build. The result of such action by the Minister must inevitably be exceptionally high scarcity rents—as there are already in many parts where there is a scarcity of housing accommodation.
1275 He says that more accommodation will be made available because owner-occupiers will each let out a room or two. That is not a solution of the housing difficulty. There will be in all those areas an intensification of scarcity value of housing accommodation, and the people in those areas who will find themselves dispossessed because of the further actions of the Minister will be called upon to endure considerable hardship, and the hardship will be just as great in five, ten or fifteen years' time as it is today.
If there is a case now for the Minister to increase from six months to fifteen months the period during which the tenant may remain in a decontrolled house after the passing of the Bill, there will be a case for it as far ahead as we can imagine, because the housing problem in the great cities and towns will not be eased by the proposals in this Bill. The local authorities are running down their housing schemes. The scarcity of housing accommodation is becoming more intense. Rents are likely to rise very high. House property values will rise.
To be consistent, the right hon. Gentleman, if he is to extend the time of protection of the tenants of those houses to come out of control immediately the Bill becomes an Act, must apply the same principle in exercising his powers under Clause 10 (3). Therefore, I appeal to him to maintain the principle that he has already established in Clause 10, and, if in the future he issues, as he undoubtedly will, orders for further decontrol, at least to show those tenants whose homes will then become decontrolled the same consideration he is now proposing to show to those tenants whose homes will be immediately decontrolled.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. H. Brooke
In Committee, we amended the six months standstill period to fifteen months. I think that it was the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) who immediately suspected that I had simultaneously introduced a provision that would empower me by Order to reduce the original fifteen months by nine months. That point is cleared up now and it is accepted by everybody that the period of fifteen months for the original decontrol under Clause 10 (1) is firm and cannot be reduced.
1276 The Bill makes it possible, if an Order is subsequently made and confirmed by an affirmative Resolution from both Houses to extend the slice of decontrol by fixing lower rateable values, to provide that the standstill period in that case, before any notice of increased rent can take effect, shall be not greater than fifteen months nor less than six months. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that in all cases the standstill period shall be fifteen months and no more, and no less, whatever the conditions may be at the time.
This matter was briefly debated in Committee, and I put it to the Committee that the Minister must have some discretion, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time that a decontrol Order under subsection (3) comes to be made, to prescribe a period between fifteen months and six months. I have no doubt that the period of fifteen months is right for present circumstances, and I think that we unanimously agreed in Committee that it was proper to extend the six months' standstill to fifteen months in the light of the present circumstances.
Those are the words that I stress, because it would not necessarily be right when the time comes to make an Order under subsection (3) to keep this standstill period at fifteen months. Ex hypothesi by that time the housing situation throughout the country will be better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, unquestionably—certainly if this Government remain in power. And if, indeed, it were right to fix lower rateable value limits for decontrol at the present time, we should be doing it in the Bill.
We are fixing the limits where they stand because we believe that they are right at the present time, but despite the Amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 10, on which the House divided, we are taking power to reduce these limits by Order, either generally or in certain parts of the country, at a later date in the light of the situation as it will, by then, have been improved. That is why I say ex hypothesi the situation will have improved by the time any such Order is made. Therefore, the Government must have a certain discretion as to the length of time for which the standstill Order should then prescribe.
If the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggests that 1277 there is anything sacred about fifteen months, it is worth while looking back on past experience, because it proves my point that the housing situation in the country differs from time to time.
The fifteen months which we are providing in the Bill for the standstill on the first decontrol is far longer than the period which was provided for in the decontrol legislation between the wars in 1933 and 1938. The 1933 Act provided for a standstill period not of fifteen months but of 2½ months, and in the circumstances of the day that worked reasonably. The 1938 Act, five years later, provided for a standstill period of four months, and that again worked reasonably.
So we have this historic evidence that in different situations from time to time different lengths of standstill may be appropriate. It is on those practical grounds that I urge the House to maintain the discretion given by the Bill as to what should be the appropriate length of the standstill period on various occasions rather than to bind the Government of the day to a fifteen months' period whatever may come. I feel sure that this is the wise course to take, and I
§ sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, which I feel sure is in the circumstances misconceived.
§ Mr. Sparks
Before sitting down, would the Minister explain to the House how it is possible for the housing situation to improve in the future in built-up areas where local authorities cannot possibly 'provide more accommodation for as far ahead as they can see?
§ Mr. Brooke
I represent a built-up area myself. I think the hon. Member for Acton will agree with me that we cannot look at a national problem of this kind on the basis of individual local authorities alone. I will go further than that, however, and remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the effects of the Bill will be to make more housing accommodation available in all areas, as I have repeatedly explained to the House.
§ Question put, That the words "that, in" stand part of the Bill: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 223.1281
|Division No. 90.]||AYES||[9.52 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Freeth, Denzil|
|Aitken, W. T.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)||Garner-Evans, E. H.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Carr, Robert||George, J. C. (Pollok)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Cary, Sir Robert||Gibson-Watt, D.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Chichester-Clark, R.||Glover, D.|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Godber, J. B.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan|
|Arbulhnot, John||Cooke, Robert||Goodhart, P. C.|
|Armstrong, C. W,||Cooper, A. E.||Gough, C. F. H.|
|Ashton, H.||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Gower, H. R.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J,||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Atkins, H. E.||Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Green, A.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Crouch, R. F.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Balniel, Lord||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Barber, Anthony||Cunningham, Knox||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.|
|Barter, John||Currie, G. B. H.||Gurden, Harold|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Dance, J. C. G.||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Davidson, Viscountess||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Deedes, W. F.||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Doughty, C. J. A.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)|
|Bishop, F. P.||du Cann, E. D. L.||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Body, R. F.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Harvie-Watt, Sir George|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Hay, John|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Elliott, R. W.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Braine, B. R.||Erroll, F. J.||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Hesketh, R. F.|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Fell, A.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Finlay, Graeme||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Fisher, Nigel||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)|
|Bryan, P.||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.||Fort, R.||Hobson, J. C.S.(War'ck&Leam'gtn)|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Holt, A. F.||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Hope, Lord John||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Hornby, R. P.||Maddan, Martin||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Russell, R. S.|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Marshall, Douglas||Shepherd, William|
|Howard, John (Test)||Mathew, R.||Smitriers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Maude, Angus||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Speir, R. M.|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Mawby, R. L.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Hurd, A. R.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gtn, S.)|
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Johnson, Eric (Blakley)||Nairn, D. L. S.||Storey, S.|
|Joseph, Sir Kelth||Neave, Alrey||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Nicholls, Harmar||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Kaberry. D,||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Keegan, D.||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Temple, John M.|
|Kerr, H. W.||Oakshott, H. D.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Kershaw, J. A.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Kirk, P. M.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Thomson Kenneth (Walton)|
|Lagden, G. W.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Thornton-Kemsley, C.N.|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Osborne, C.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Langford-Holt, J. A.||Page, R. G.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Leavey, J. A.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Turton,Rt. R. H.|
|Lebum, W. G.||Partridge, E.||Vane W.M.F.|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Peyton, J. W. W.||Vaugham-Morgan, J.K.|
|Legth, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Liewellyn, D. T.||Pitman, I. J.||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Lioyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Pott, H. P.||Ward Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Longden, Gilbert||Powell, J. Enoch||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt, Hon. C.|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|McAdden, S. J.||Profumo, J. D.||Whitelaw W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)|
|Macdonald, Sir Peter||Ralkes, Sir Victor||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Rawlinson, Peter||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|McKibbin, A. J.||Redmayne, M.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Remnant, Hon. P.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Renton, D. L. M.|
|McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Ridsdale, J. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Rippon, A. G. F.||Mr. Richard Thompson and|
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Robertson, Sir David||Mr. Edward Wakefield.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Chetwynd, G. R.||Greenwood, Anthony|
|Albu, A. H.||Coldrick, W.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Grey, C. F.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelfy)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Cronin, J. D.||Hale, Leslie|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Crossman, R. H. S.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)|
|Baird, J.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Hamilton, W. W.|
|Balfour, A.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hannan, W.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hastings, S.|
|Benson, G.||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Hayman, F. H.|
|Blackburn, F.||Deer, G.||Healey, Denis|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Delargy, H. J.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Dodds, N. N.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Boardman, H.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Hewitson, Capt. M.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hobson, C. R. (Kelgley)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Edelman, M.||Holman, P.|
|Boyd, T. C.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Holmes, Horace|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Houghton, Douglas|
|Brockway, A. F.||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)|
|Brcughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)||Hoy, J. H.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Burke, W. A.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Hughes, Emrys, (S, Ayrshire)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Flenburgh, W.||Hunter, A. E.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Finch, H. J.||Hynd, H. (Aocrington)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Fletcher, Eric||Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Forman, J. C.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)|
|Chapman, W.D.||Gooch, E. G-||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Janner, B.||O'Brien, Sir Thomas||Sparks, J. A.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Oliver, G. H.||Steele, T.|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Oram, A. E.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs.S.)||Orbach, M.||Stonehouse, J.T.|
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Oswald, T.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Owen, W. J.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Padley, W. E.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Paget, R. T.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Pargiter, G. A,||Thomas, George (Gardiff)|
|Lawson, G. M.||Parker, J.||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Ledger, R. J.||Parkin, B. T.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Paton, John||Thornton, E.|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Peart, T. F.||Timmons, J.|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Pentland, N.||Tomney, F.|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Lewis, Arthur||Popplewell, E.||Usborne, H. C.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Viant, S. P.|
|MacDermot, Niall||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Warbey, W. N.|
|McGhee, H. G.||Probert, A. R.||Watkins, T. E.|
|McGovern, J.||Proctor, W. T.||Weitzman, D.|
|Mclrmes, J.||Pryde, D. J.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Randall, H. E.||West, D. G.|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Rankin, John||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|MacPherson, Maloolm (Stirling)||Redhead, E. C.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Mahon, Simon||Reeves, J.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Reld, William||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Rhodes, H.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Willey, Frederick|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Mason, Roy||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Mayhew, C. P.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Mellish, R. J.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Ross, William||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Monslow, W.||Royle, C.||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Moody, A. S.||Short, E. W.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Mort, D. L.||Skeffington, A. M.||Woof, R. E.|
|Moss, R.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Moyle, A.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Mulley, F. W.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
Amendment made: In page 26, line 13, at end insert:
12. As respects any time after the time of decontrol, references in this Schedule to the tenant include references to any other person who by virtue of paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 would have been entitled on the death of the tenant to retain possession if the Rent Acts had not ceased to apply to the dwelling-house.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne)
I beg to move, in page 26, line 14, at the end to insert:(a) in paragraph 5 for any reference to the county court there shall be substituted a reference to the sheriff, and in sub-paragraph (4) the words from "if the improvement is one" to "1927, or", and sub-paragraph (7) shall be omitted.This Amendment makes the necessary modification in the application to Scotland of the new paragraph 5 of the Schedule, which deals with compensation for tenants' improvements.
§ Amendment agreed to.