HC Deb 11 February 1958 vol 582 cc208-25
Mr. Speaker

Before I call the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) to move the Motion which appears in his name, I would call the attention of the House to one of its rules. Hon. Members will find it at the top of page 401 of the latest edition of Erskine May, which states: The rule may be fully stated as follows:— No question or bill shall be offered in either House that is substantially the same as one on which its judgment has already been expressed in the current session. That is a very old rule of the House.

In the course of the last two weeks, the House has twice decided, after Divisions, against Motions for leave to bring in Bills suspending the operation of Section 11 of the Rent Act, 1957, for different periods in relation to tenants generally affected by it.

The Motion before us today proposes a Bill to suspend the operation of that Section by an order of the court with regard to certain categories of tenants, namely, aged tenants and tenants of long occupation and in cases of grave hardship. The hon. Member will no doubt realise that in commending his Motion to us, he should confine himself to these three categories and not seek to traverse the operation of the Section generally, because that would be contrary to the rule which I have stated.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could give the House a little more information on the Ruling and the citation which we have just heard. The last two Bills for which leave was sought both related to the Rent Act and to evictions, but they proposed quite different things. One proposed a postponement of the operation of that Section of the Act generally. The other proposed relief in relation to negotiations between a landlord and a tenant for a new lease. Judging by the title of the Motion today, the third proposed Bill relates again to something totally different; that is to say, a jurisdiction in the courts to give relief in certain particularly hard cases.

May we take it, Mr. Speaker, that there is no objection to any Bill being introduced, or leave sought for any Bill, even though it relates to the same Statute, if its subject matter is not the same as that of any previous Bill for which leave has been sought? Further, may we have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on another point? When leave is sought but is refused, I take it that the position is the same as regards the relevance of the subsequent Motion to what would have happened if leave had been granted.

Mr. Speaker

The first part of the rule states that the House cannot be asked to approve a Motion or a Bill which is substantially the same as one that it has already declined to approve. It is a question of what is "substantial" and what is not. In the case of the last two Bills, I decided that there was sufficient difference between them to justify me in calling the Member and putting the Question. In this case, because the proposed Bill seeks to confine the relief to certain categories of tenants and not to tenants generally, I decide again that it is substantially different in that respect.

What I was pointing out to the hon. Member for Willesden, East, who is about to move his Motion—when he gets a chance—is that in these Ten Minutes Rule Bills the House relies entirely on the Member's description of the contents of his proposed Bill, because there is at this stage no Bill before us. Therefore, if the hon. Member moves his Motion and produces an argument which traverses matters already decided, that would be a description by himself of his Bill as one that was out of order. Consequently, I was warning the hon. Member to keep strictly to his notice and to describe his Bill as one that is limited to the categories I have mentioned.

As regards future Bills, I should not like to give a general ruling on them until I see what the ingenuity of Members produces, but I will certainly look at each one on its merits in accordance with the rule of the House.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

On a point of order, Sir. Is there not a further question to be considered here? Has the House passed its judgment on any of these Bills? The Motion which is moved on these occasions is a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill which is not before the House at all, and on that Motion the House expresses no judgment on the Bill. In my opinion, therefore, this rule is quite inapplicable to applications made under the rule for leave to introduce a Bill, which does not exist and upon which, therefore, the House can express no judgment.

Mr. Speaker

We are not talking about Bills, because no Bill exists. We are talking about a Motion of which an hon. Member is giving notice, and if the House has decided substantially against the same Motion in the same Session, his Motion cannot be put from the Chair. There is nothing about Bills yet. The hon. Member for Willesden, East has not had leave yet.

Mr. Maurice Orbach (Willesden, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the appropriate Court to restrain or delay eviction from dwelling-houses decontrolled under section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, in cases of aged tenants and long occupation or of grave hardship; and for purposes connected therewith. I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I hope that during the course of my speech I shall not transgress the rule of the House and that all the arguments which I shall put forward will be directed to the purposes of the Bill for the introduction of which I hope to obtain leave. It was an anxious moment while I waited for the points of order to be discussed—almost as anxious as the months which many people are going through at the moment.

It is the right and proper custom of the House that any hon. Member who addresses it on a Motion or on a Bill, or even participates in a debate, should declare any direct personal interest which he may have in the matter under discussion. I want to start by declaring that I have a direct personal interest in the Bill which is named in the Motion.

I hope, however, that speeches which I make and which any hon. Member may make in the House, whether they be directors of 20, 30, or 40 property companies, will all be made in the public interest and not because of any special interest which hon. Members may serve outside the Chamber. I hope that it will be recognised that in speaking to the Motion I am charged with motives directed purely to serving the common weal. My direct personal interest— [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it? "]— wait for it—is that I have received, under the Rent Restriction Regulations, 1957, a notice to quit. In receiving the notice, and in contemplating it, I am in a position no different from that of the heads of thousands of families, and it is of many of them that I want to speak. I have a further direct interest in my proposed Bill in that I have been given notice to quit after residing in my present flat for eighteen years.

But I am really concerned about the thousands of citizens of Willesden, 90 per cent. of whom find that their accommodation is decontrolled as a result of the passage of the Rent Act. My proposed Bill not only seeks to relieve the anxiety and distress which attends the receipt of notice to quit, but by means of it I hope to give tenants a feeling that justice is still available in the country. There is a growing body of public opinion under an impression, which I share, that the Rent Act, 1957, was designed purely and solely to aid landlords.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is the sort of general consideration which I think the hon. Member should avoid. If he can tell the House of the three categories named in his Motion, it will be more to the point and will also enable him to make his speech as short as the practice demands.

Mr. Orbach

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that all these papers which I hold are not notes for my speech. I hope that you will recognise that I am putting forward arguments to emphasise the powers which I want embodied to be in the Bill.

Many hon. Members opposite believe that in October, 1958, old-age pensioners, or elderly people, or people who have held long tenancies, or those who suffer very great hardship, will be in no difficulty, because by then the movement of hundreds of thousands of tenants will have ceased and everything will have settled down. In fact, at Question Time today the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave that as an answer to Questions addressed to him by my hon.

Friends. He has said, and has repeated clearly on innumerable occasions, that there will be plenty of accommodation available, as the result of the passage of the Rent Act, as soon as October, 1958, is reached.

If I refer again to my own case it is only to emphasise the plight of others. It is true that my absence from the House while I am looking for accommodation may mean that I shall have to give up strict attention to my Parliamentary duties, but perhaps that is how the Minister of Housing and Local Government sees the manner in which Parliamentary duties should be carried out. In accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's advice, I, like so many others, have approached property owners and estate agents all over the London area. I sent out 24 letters last week and I have received two replies. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in them.

The first was from a Tory county councillor, who denounces the Rent Act. He sent me the keys of a flat near Redding-ton Road, which I found unsuitable for my pocket, and for other reasons. The second letter was from an insurance company which is a large property holder in the right hon. Gentleman's borough. It reads: We are in receipt of your letter regarding vacant flats, but we have to advise you that our Waiting List is now so extensive that no useful purpose would be served by adding further names. What sort of nonsense has the Minister been talking in the House week after week about accommodation being available? Here is the Beacon Insurance Company, one of the largest in the country and one of the largest property-owners in London, replying like that when asked to help me find a modest flat.

The position of many of my constituents is very much worse. Among the 260,000 people in the country who are already recipients of assistance from the National Assistance Board in respect of rent increases under the Rent Act, there must be a great number who have come to me from time to time for help. The rent increases are being met by the whole community and there are others who are almost as badly off, but the tenants of advanced age, or those who have long tenancies, are in a very precarious position today.

Last week leave was refused to introduce a Bill attempting to amend the Rent Act, but reference was made during the debate to an approach made by the local Member of Parliament to landlords. I want to know whether it is right that a Member of Parliament should be used as an arbitrator in issues of this description. I question seriously whether we were sent here to hammer the landlord down on what we think is an exorbitant rent.

In any case, I am in the unfortunate position, as are many other people, of not being able to go to my Member of Parliament, who is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and I cannot learn from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon. North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing). The right hon. Gentleman replies to constituents—the aged and other people who have long-term tenancies— in exactly the same way as he replies to the House. He tells them to negotiate. Surely there have to be two or more parties to negotiation, and when the landlord will not negotiate what, then, does a tenant do? My proposed Bill asks for power to take the matter before the court in the cases I have described, so that justice can really prevail. What the right hon. Gentleman means, however, is that negotiation usually means the acceptance of the landlord's will. I listened to the Minister this afternoon when he said that when negotiations failed we should seek expert advice. I will give him an illustration of a case of which he is well aware, because his attention has been drawn to it.

A Hampstead property was bought for £950 in 1954. The two sitting tenants were paying £190 and £180 respectively. Having bought the property for £950, the landlord took the best of the three flats. As soon as the monstrous Rent Act was passed he offered new leases to the two other tenants. He said: "You can stay for a period of three or seven years provided you are prepared to pay £450 each per annum exclusive of rates, and be responsible for all repairs." [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That is not the end of the story.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

Tory freedom.

Mr. Orbach

One of these tenants who had lived in the house for twenty-five years, the landlord being on the floor below, will be 96 in June and is at the moment ill with pneumonia. Hon. Members are well aware of the case. The son of this aged lady offered the landlord £375 per annum, which was three-and-three-quarter times the gross rateable value. He has countered with a final offer of £425. What does she do? Negotiate? With whom? Seek advice? From whom?

That is the type of case with which the proposed Bill is designed to deal, and there are others of equally great hardship. I could quote numbers of them from amongst my own constituents. It is essential that the Minister should stand up to his responsibilities. We find ourselves, in Hampstead, completely disfranchised. We have no redress without this type of amending Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am speaking with some spleen because I am on the opposite side of the House, he has only to look at what his own supporters say. Here is what one of his old supporters writes: When I think that Mr. Henry Brooke talked to the tenants association here when the Rent Act was being prepared and told us all, quite seriously, that we had no need to worry as we should find our landlords were quite ready to negotiate, it makes me sick. Here is another one: All perfectly legal, yes, but what a cruel and inhuman way to do it! Think of all the old people. It reminds you of one thing only—the Nazis. That's all I have to say. I am not arguing here against the landlords, although some of them have been damnable. What I am saying is that the Minister has given a sanction to the damnable landlords, and by allowing this free market he is egging on the bad landlord to get a better price than he would otherwise get if there had been some control put on properties of this type.

Therefore, I put the blame squarely on this House. It is Parliament which has been responsible for the 1957 Act; it is Parliament which must amend it. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides, in spite of whatever interests they may have outside, to remember that the interests of the very old constituents and those who have long tenancies come first. I hope that there will be no one on the opposite side of the House who will oppose this Motion, but if there is I ask him to justify the eviction of a woman of 96 from the house that she is now occupying.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Norwich, South)

I rise to oppose this Motion. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) I should disclose an interest. I, too, am a tenant of a decontrolled house, but I am one of the fortunate ones in Greater London who have been able to negotiate a fresh agreement. I believe that many people have been able to do the same and I hope that the hon. Member will be one of them. The truth is that no change, even for the better, can be introduced without inconvenience. Forty years of rent control has gravely aggravated the housing situation. There are bound to be transitional difficulties and we have to face them humanely and realistically. The Bill which the hon. Gentleman seeks leave to introduce would solve none of those difficulties. It would merely postpone them by further extending the security of tenure which has already been extended for fifteen months.

Mr. Percy Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

Until a Labour Government get in.

Mr. Rippon

We must face the position frankly. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's concern for all old people who may be evicted under the Act, but I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are doing a very grave disservice to the people they seek to help by their speeches in this House and outside.

Hon. Members

Rubbish.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You ruled, Sir, before my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach) spoke, that if he made a speech which was identical to that made the week before you would quite properly rule him out of order. That we understood. If this Ruling applies to the Opposition, why does it not apply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), who is using exactly the same words as were used before from those benches?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is not moving a Motion. He is opposing one.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, consequent upon the point raised by my hon. Friend and your Ruling upon that point. I understood your original Ruling to be that the speeches in support of the Motion must be confined to the specific proposals which would be made by the Bill, in order to avoid going over the point which the House has already decided. Does it not follow from that, since all my hon. Friend is asking is leave to introduce a Bill to deal with certain specific hard cases, the hon. Member who wishes to oppose the Motion ought at some point in his argument to show why these specific hard cases should not be dealt with?

Mr. Speaker

The point to which I drew the attention of the House was that it is out of order to offer a Question or a Bill which is substantially the same as one on which the judgment of the House has already been expressed. I was warning the hon. Member for Willesden, East so to describe the Bill which he was seeking to introduce as not to transgress that rule by making it identical with the Motion on which the House had previously expressed its disagreement, on a Division. The hon. Member's speech was in order and contained a good deal of general background, to which I did not object. I am bound to say that I have heard nothing which the hon. Member for Norwich, South had said which transgresses any rule of the House.

Mr. Silverman

Further to that point of order. I apologise for pressing the point, Sir, but surely it is right to say that in so far as the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is not directed to the Bill which my hon. Friend is seeking to have leave to introduce it is totally irrelevant and out of order on that ground.

Mr. Speaker

I do not take that view of the speech. I thought that it was directed to the Motion before us. The general argument—and I do not express any opinion on whether it was right or wrong—was that it was doing the tenants of these houses a disservice to agitate against the Act. That was the general argument, and whether it be right or wrong is perfectly relevant.

Mr. Rippon

I was trying to explain that I oppose the Motion because any Bills such as the one the hon. Member for Willesden, East suggests would aggravate and not mitigate the situation, taking the long view. The hon. Member specifically challenged me to say what I would do about the eviction of a person aged 96. Of course, one hopes that in circumstances like that—and I believe that it will be true in the majority of causes—the landlord will take a sympathetic view. But the real solution is not to delay eviction. It is to encourage landlords and owner-occupiers to offer that old person alternative accommodation.

I believe that many people would be willing to come forward and offer that accommodation but for the fact that the Opposition treat anyone who lets accommodation as a villain. The best service which hon. Members opposite could render to tenants would be to withdraw their threats to repeal the Rent Act and to withdraw their lunatic proposals for municipalisation—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because in those circumstances there would certainly be no need for the Motion.

Mr. Herbert Butler (Hackney, Central)

On a point of order. There is nothing in my hon. Friend's proposal dealing with the municipalisation of tenancies. Is it in order, Sir, to discuss the implications of the Labour Party's proposals for dealing with the situation?

Mr. Speaker

It is very hard to say what is in order and what is not. The hon. Member for Norwich, South argues that it is better to proceed with the Act unamended than to amend it now. Hon. Members may not agree, but they ought to listen, as I have to listen, to conflicting views from both sides of the House.

Mr. Rippon

My whole argument is directed to the point that the Opposition are encouraging the evictions which they now seek to delay—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—and are causing needless anxiety and worry to many tenants who are being stampeded into entering into the sort of detrimental agreement to which the hon. Member for Willesden, East referred. Obviously, if hon. Members say that there is a terrible shortage of accommodation and that there will be wholesale evictions, bad landlords will seek to exploit the situation.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

On a point of order. If the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is trying to show that what is being done on this side of the House, or being proposed by my hon. Friend, leads to evictions rather than otherwise, surely, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, he has to do it within the four corners of the proposal that he has brought forward. What we are aggrieved about is that he is wandering over policy at large and not confining his speech to the four corners of the proposal.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. Friend has to confine himself to the four corners of the Motion and has no opportunity to deal with matters outside it, that should apply to the hon. Member who is opposing the Motion. Would it not otherwise mean that arguments from one side of the House could roam over a subject and could not be met by anything said on the other side of the House?

Mr. Speaker

That, unfortunately, is the case, but it is no fault of mine. The hon. Member for Willesden, East was called upon to describe his proposed Bill and had to describe it as one different from that to which the House has refused permission for its introduction. The hon. Member for Norwich, South is using a general argument which may have been valid against the previous Motion and be equally valid against this. If there is a general argument against one topic, it may be equally arguable and relevant against similar topics.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Further to that point of order. If it is relevant to have a general argument against a particular proposal, is it not relevant to have a corresponding general argument in favour of the proposal?

Mr. Speaker

Not at all. The hon. Member for Norwich, South is not seeking to introduce a Bill, nor describing the contents of a document. He is opposing the argument which has been adduced in favour of the Motion. The hon. Member for Willesden, East was under a completely different obligation and different considerations applied to him.

Mr. Rippon

I will now turn from the general to the particular.

Mr. Orbach

On a point of order. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, during the course of the argument which I advanced in favour of my Motion, you rose and asked me to keep to the particular Bill which I was seeking leave to introduce. Having listened carefully, I have not heard a single statement from the hon. Member opposite which has had anything to do with the Bill which I propose to introduce, or which was a valid argument.

Mr. Speaker

That may be. I stopped the hon. Member because he was describing his proposed Bill in terms which made it appear to be very similar to one leave for the introduction of which the House had refused, and I was bound to take action. The strength of the argument against the Motion is not a matter for me, but it is in order and relevant.

Mr. E. Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)

On a point of order. We understood you to say, Mr. Speaker that as a Bill had not been printed my hon. Friend would define his proposed Bill by his speech. He did so and made clear to the House that the Bill would be confined to three points. Is it not the fact that from the moment he sat down the Bill was clearly defined and that any subsequent speaker therefore had to apply himself to the confines of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, but a general argument against altering the Act at all [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that is what I understood the arguments to mean—may be relevant against all Motions of this sort.

Mr. Rippon

I will now move from the general argument, which hon. Members opposite seem to have understood and followed, to the particular point arising in relation to orders for possession and the position of old people.

I believe that if we act sensibly there will not be a vast number of evictions. In any event, we should bear in mind that there is no question of all these families

Division No. 39.] AYES [4.12 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Benson, C. Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Beswick, Frank Bowles, F. G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Boyd, T. C.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Blackburn, F. Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Bacon Mist Alice Blenkinsop, A. Brockway, A. F.
Baird, J. Blyton, W. R. Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Balfour, A. Boardman, H. Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Burton, Miss F. E.

finding themselves on the streets on 1st October. The appropriate court cannot refuse to make the possession order, but it has a discretion in the way in which it supervises the carrying out of the order. As the hon. Member for Willesden, East said, the real question is whether other accommodation will be available. We ought to make it clear as far as we can that there is likely to be a surfeit of houses for sale—

Mr. Shurmer

Can old-age pensioners buy houses?

Mr. Rippon

—so that others will become available for letting. Some unfurnished accommodation is already coming into the market in some areas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—and conversions are going on apace, and would go on even faster but for the attacks of the Opposition. In any case, there should be about 200,000 new flats or houses available by 1st October.

Mr. Mellish

What about the waiting lists?

Mr. Rippon

As for old people, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the circulars which the Minister has addressed to local authorities and which —in spite of everything that was said at Question Time—are well within their existing powers to carry out, both in providing new accommodation for old people and in converting and improving old houses. I do not believe that the proposed Bill will do anything but aggravate the position—

Mr. Mellish

Sit down and shut up.

Mr. Rippon

—and I therefore ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hunter, A. E. Probert, A. R.
Butler Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Proctor, W. T.
Callaghan, L. J. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Randall, H. E.
Champion, A. J. Irving, Sydney (Dartfortd) Rankin, John
Chetwynd, G. R. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Redhead, E. C.
Clunie, J. Janner, B. Reeves, J.
Coldrick, w. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenheacd) Jeger, George (Goole) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Coll ns, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury) Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pnos.S.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Cove, W. G. Johnson, James (Rugby) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
CraddocK, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Ross, William
Cronin, J. D. Jones, David (The Hartiepools) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Short, E. W.
Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Kenyon, C. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lawson, G. M. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Deer, G. Ledger, R. J. Skeffington, A. M.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Delargy, H. J. Lewis, Arthur Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Diamond, John Lindgren, G. S. Snow, J. W.
Dodds, N. N. Lipton, Marcus Sparks, J. A.
Dye, S. Logan, D. G. Steele, T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stonehouse, John
Edelman, M. MacColl, J. E. Stones, W. (Consett)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) McGhee, H. G. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mclnnes, J. Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Swingler, S. T.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Sylvester, G. O.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mason, Roy Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fernyhough, E. Mellish, R. J. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Fletcher, Eric Mikardo, Ian Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Foot, D. M. Mitohison, G. R. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Monslow, W. Tomney, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Moody, A. S. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Gibson, C. W. Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) Usborne, H. C.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moss, R. Viant, S. P.
Crenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Moyle, A. Warbey, W. N.
Grey, C. F. Mulley, F. W. Watkins, T. E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Weitzman, D.
Grimond, J, Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hale, Leslie Oliver, G. H. West, D. G.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oram, A. E. Wheeldon, W. E.
Hannan, W. Oswald, T. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Owen, W. J. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Hastings, S. Padley, W. E. Wilkins, W. A.
Hayman, F. H. Palmer, A. M. F. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Healey, Denis Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Pargiter, G. A. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Herbison, Miss M. Parker, J. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hobson, C. R, (Keighley) Paton, John Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Holman, P. Pearson, A, Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Holmes, Horace Peart, T. F. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Pentland, N. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Howell, Denis (All Saints) Popplewell, E. Zilliacus, K.
Hubbard, T. F. Prentice, R. E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Mr. Orbach and Mr. Parkin
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Bennett, Dr. Reginald Channon, Sir Henry
Aitken, W. T. Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Chichester-Clark, R.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Biggs-Davison, J. A. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)
Alport, C. J. M. Birch, Rt Hon. Nigel Cole, Norman
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Bashop, F. P. Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Arbuthnot, John Black, C. W. Cooke, Robert
Armstrong, C. W. Body, R. F. Cooper, A. E,
Ashton, H. Bossom, Sir Alfred Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Astor, Hon. J. J. Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Atkins, H. E. Boyle, Sir Edward Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
BaldocK, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)
Baldwin, A. E. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Currie, G. B. H.
Balniel, Lord Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Dance, J. C. G.
Barber, Anthony Brooman-White, R. C. Davidson, Viscountess
Barlow, Sir John Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Barter, John Bryan, P. Deedes, W. F.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Digby, Simon Wingfield
Bell, Philip (Bilton, E.) Butter.Rt.Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden) Dodds-Parker, A. D,
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Cary, Sir Robert Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Doughty, C. J. A. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Partridge, E.
Drayson, G. B. Joseph, Sir Keith Peel, W. J.
du Cann, E. D. L. Kaberry, D. Peyton, J. W. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Pike, Miss Mervyn
Duncan, Sir James Kershaw, J. A. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Duthie, W. S. Kimball, M. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castleuponTyne, N.) Kirk, P. M. Pott, H. P.
Errington, Sir Eric Lambert, Hon. G. Powell, J. Enoch
Erroll, F.J. Lambton, Viscount Price, David (Eastleigh)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Profumo, J. D.
Fell, A. Leather, E. H. C. Ramsden, J. E.
Finlay, Graeme Leavey, J. A. Redmayne, M.
Fisher, Nigel Leburn, W. G. Remnant, Hon. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Renton, D. L. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'embe & Lonsdale) Legh, Hon. Peter (Pe[...]ersfield) Ridsdale, J. E.
Gammans, Lady Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Robertson, Sir David
George, J. c. (Pollok) Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Gibson-Watt, D. Linstead, Sir H. N. Robson Brown, Sir William
Glover, D. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Glyn, Col. Richard H. Longden, Gilbert Russell, R. S.
Godber, J. B. Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Sharples, R. C.
Goodhart, Philip Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Shepherd, William
Gower, H. R. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Grant, W. (Woodside) McAdden, S. J. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Macdonald, Sir Peter Speir, R. M.
Green, A. McKibbin, Alan Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Stevens, Geoffrey
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) McLaughlin, Mrs. p. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Gurden, Harold Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) Storey, s.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) McLean, Neil (Inverness) Studholme, Sir Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Summers, Sir Spencer
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macelesf'd) Maddan, Martin Teeling, W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Temple, John M.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Marples, Rt, Hon. A. E. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R. (Croydon, S.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Marshall, Douglas Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Mathew, R. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Mawby, R. L. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Hill, John (s. Norfolk) Milllgan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Moore, Sir Thomas Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hirst, Geoffrey Morrison, John (Salisbury) Vane, W. M. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Nabarro, G. D. N. Vickers, Miss Joan
Hope, Lord John Neave, Airey Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hornby, R. P. Nicholls, Harmar Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Wall, Major Patrlok
Howard, John (Test) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral, J. Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan Webbe, Sir H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Nugent, G. R. H. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Hurd, A. R. Oakshott, H. D. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Hyde, Montgomery Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wood, Hon. R.
Iremonger, T. L. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Woollam, John Victor
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Page, R. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Sir Robert Cary and Mr. Rippon.
Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask for your guidance in referring in future to the introduction of a Motion under Standing Order No. 12 which refers to Motions for leave to bring in Bills.

In all history the rule to which you refer regarding the introduction of a Motion on which the judgment of the House has already been expressed in the current Session has never been applied to Standing Order No. 12, even though at one period it was used extensively by Irish Members for the purposes of obstruction. I submit that it is inapplicable and I ask for a Ruling to that effect.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that the submission of the hon. and learned Member is right, but, coming from him, I shall give it close attention and come to a conclusion upon it. My idea is that this old rule applies to all Motions. It is at least 350 years old. If the hon. and learned Member will put his point to me I will consider it, but I do not think that now is the time to argue it.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

It was rather difficult to catch, at this end of the Chamber, what you said, Mr. Speaker, but some hon. Members thought you said that you would give careful consideration to the submission of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), coming, as it did, from him. Is it suggested that because this submission came from my hon. and learned Friend it will receive consideration above that which it might receive had it come from any other hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker

Not at all. To me, all hon. Members are alike in importance, but some hon. Members show greater industry than others in delving into our past records.

Mr. Paget

I am grateful for what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I will take the opportunity to bring this matter to your notice and to explain it.