Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 18, at end insert:
(1A) In proceedings for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house in which a suspension of execution is granted or refused under section three of this Act (including any application under that section arising out of the grant of such suspension) the court shall not have power to make an order for costs except—
§ Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, after "costs", to insert "against the occupier".
It might save time and be for the convenience of the House if I indicated now that, having considered the matter, my hon. Friend and I do not propose to move the Amendment, in line 11, leave out from "that" to "such" in line 12, and insert:it is reasonable to make".We think that it would really make little difference.
Returning to the Amendment to which I am speaking, the Lords Amendment is intended to remove the court's power to make any order for costs except in two cases, one where a suspension of execution is refused or revoked on grounds applicable under previous Rent Acts, and the secondwhere it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the parties respectively in and in connection with the proceedings, that there are special reasons for the making of such an order.One has to remember that the present practice of the courts, as the Minister told us in earlier discussions of the Bill, is to make no order for costs in cases under the Rent Acts, and it seems probable that that practice would be applied in this type of case.
The question, therefore, is how far we should go in removing the court's power to make an order for costs. The Amendment we propose would prevent the courts making an order for costs against the occupier, but it would leave the owner or the former landlord in exactly the same position as at present, that is to say, in most cases there would be no order for costs.
The reason why an exceptional provision of this sort is required, and was suggested during the Second Reading debate, is quite clear. When the Bill was introduced the Minister indicated its purpose 1231 in words that I do not desire to improve upon for present purposes. He said:The Bill is before the House for the single purpose of aiding the small number of decontrolled tenants who, by next October, may not have succeeded in making fresh arrangements although they have done their best."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 1168.]There was no intention in the Bill to do anything but help tenants who were, in effect, being turned out of their houses—some of which they may have occupied for a long time—as a result of the Government's main Rent Act.
There is no need today to discuss how many of them there will be; there is no need to refer again to the feelings which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, hon. Members on this side of the House still entertain in relation to the Rent Act in general and the operation of the eviction part of it in particular. The one point we have to consider is the position of those remaining hardship tenants who are threatened with eviction and have to depend upon the Bill, limited in character as it is, for some measure of temporary protection. The plain fact is that whatever we put into the Bill we cannot get over the fact that many of these tenants—and I would say most—are really frightened of going to court at all. To some extent they are merely frightened of the courts, but their particular reason is that they are frightened of costs, the scope and amount of which they are extremely apt to exaggerate.
When the Bill was being discussed previously hon. Members on both sides of the House had this point very much in mind. The practical task is to give these people the limited protection afforded by the Bill without allowing their fear of the courts to make that protection nugatory, because if it persists the result will be that a tenant who might, even under the terms of the Bill, have succeeded in getting some temporary relief if he went to court, will not go there and will either be turned out or will come to some harsh and unconscionable bargain with the landlord, with whom in normal circumstances he would have been unable to agree.
That is the practical thing that we all want to do. Accordingly, the Lord Chancellor in another place, speaking for the Government in regard to the Clause which we are now discussing in the form 1232 of a Lords Amendment, after referring to the practice of the courts at present and saying that it presumably be followed in these cases, saidthat is not sufficient. We must make sure that in a Bill which we all desire should prevent hardship no one should be frightened out of a remedy for that hardship through fear of costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 15th July. 1958; Vol. 210, c. 1103.]I entirely agree, but the hardship to which the Lord Chancellor was referring was the occupiers hardship and not that of the owner. Whatever may or may not be the owner's hardships, they are nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill is intended simply to give temporary relief to occupiers.
I agree that we must be fair to landlords or owners—call them what we will. Personally, I have always taken great care, in talking about the main Act and this Measure, to make it quite clear that hon. Members on this side of the House do not think that all landlords are bad, or that all tenants are good. We recognise that landlords also have their difficulties. But that is not the point we are now considering. What will happen in all these cases is that, having failed to agree with the tenant, the landlord will go to the court to get an order to turn the tenant out. That is background. There can be little or no discussion about that prima facie right.
The question will be whether the tenant can get the order suspended. In the majority of these cases there is likely to be considerable discussion on the facts. At an earlier stage the right hon. Gentleman explained that costs did not matter so much from the point of view of the tenant, because what the tenant would have to show would be purely fact.
I cannot go quite so far as that. After all, the tenant has to prove questions regarding what is and what is not reasonable on what I should have thought to be at the least mixed fact and law. We agree that the tenant will have to discharge a considerable burden of proof in relation to facts and there may be questions—I do not say there will—of external evidence. There may even be questions of expert evidence. Really, in a balanced case, where it is a question of whether the tenant has done all that he should to find somewhere else to go, where it is also a question of whether a particular 1233 proposal was one which was reasonable and the refusal of which was therefore unreasonable, and on questions of greater hardship, too, those are matters which will be involved.
We may very well think, assuming a good and honest landlord and a good and honest tenant, that there will be real debates, and that the case will go on for a good deal longer than a single day. That is not out of the question. And the effect of the Clause as produced by the Amendment we are now discussing is that in any litigation of that sort the tenant can never recover costs from the landlord, if we assume, as I have assumed for this purpose, that on the whole they are two reasonable parties, and the differences between them are matters which are arguable and balanced and are not in any way instances of unfair or unreasonable behaviour on either side. So, far from protecting the tenant, in the normal and reasonable case he will be bound to pay his own costs.
I cannot accept the proposition that in that type of case any hon. Member would recommend a tenant to act by himself. No doubt he would have to in some cases, but we are trying to extend the facilities for legal aid. We have been told time and again by the Minister that in other matters, not really of any greater importance to him than this, the tenant should get the best advice he can. It seems in line with what has been said on those matter that the tenant would be well advised in such a case to get the local solicitor or some other suitable person to represent him.
It cannot be right that we should contemplate a state of affairs where the tenant could be deprived of the possibility of representation in that way or that, however right and successful he may be, he cannot get his costs back from the landlord. I am not talking about unreasonable cases or special reasons—I am coming to that in a moment—but in the ordinary type of case we should not deprive the court of the power to make an order against the owner.
There is here a provision which will protect the landlord against a wholly unreasonable tenant and which will, of course, enable the tenant to recover costs from a wholly unreasonable landlord. That is the special circumstances provision which I read out just now. But one 1234 has to remember that these cases of "special reasons"—whether those particular words are used or not—are apt to be very strictly construed by the courts. We all remember special reasons in relation to depriving motorists of their right to drive for a period of time. There are similar cases under a provision in the Bankruptcy Acts, and there is another case in the criminal law. Those words, or similar words, occur in quite a number of places and they always lead to a strict construction. It would be taking up the time of the House unduly to argue—as should be prepared to argue—that they are bound to lead to a strict construction.
Therefore, while recognising that the words are there, that they are some measure of assistance, we contend that they do not really meet the case which we have in mind. I suggest that if we are to have this provision at all, it must be limited to the special protection being given to the occupier and not to the owner.
I hope that no hon. Member opposite will say, "Well, this is most unfair. This shows that you are prepared to deny to one man what you are only too ready to give to another." I hope that will not be said, because anyone advancing that type of argument would seem to me to forget entirely the real purpose of the Bill, and the real, human fact that in these cases it will be the occupier who will be frightened out of the remedy which we want to give to him because of fear of the courts and fear of costs. This special provision ought to be given—as indeed in another place the Lord Chancellor indicated it should—to meet that fear and that fright, and not to provide a special protection for landlords who are already sufficiently protected under the existing practice of the law.
I hope that hon. Members opposite who, in earlier stages of our discussions on the Bill, were very appreciative of the difficulties about costs, will now look at the real, human facts of the matter—as, to do them justice, I think they have tried to do previously—and will agree with me that this Amendment ought to be introduced.
§ Mr. Niall MacDermot (Lewisham, North)
I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
1235 I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this Amendment because it is designed to give better effect to what is, or what was, declared the intention of the Government Amendment in another place. As the matter was explained there, it was recognised that there was a real danger that tenants would be afraid to try to exercise their rights under the Bill, because of the risk that if they did so and lost the day, they might be saddled with a heavy burden of costs.
It was said in answer to that, "Well, in the vast majority of cases of this kind it is the practice of the courts to make no order as to costs." But it also was recognised that it provides small comfort to tell that to a tenant who is in such a state of fear, because he will still be in a state of fear thinking that his case will be the hundredth, and that the ninety-nine other cases will not include his. So it was said, "What, in effect, we will do is to give statutory effect to what has become the practice of the courts." So we find that the Government Amendment provides that, as a general rule, there will be no order at all as to costs, but that if there are special circumstances, and special circumstances having regard to the conduct of the parties in and in connection with the proceedings, there may be an order for costs. So far, so good.
But what is not provided for in the Lords Amendment, and to which our Amendment is directed, is the way in which there can be further oppression offered to the tenant, namely, where we get the case of a tenant who knows that if he is going to take the point that he thinks he is entitled to a suspension of the order, it may raise difficult questions of fact which will have to be litigated, and at some expense. The tenant may feel very confident about his case, but may say, "I cannot afford to incur all the legal costs of bringing these proceedings. I cannot afford to engage solicitors, counsel and expert witnesses, and so on, to prove that I am entitled to an extension of six months or nine months, or whatever it may be."
As the Lords Amendment stands, there will be no possibility of recovering those costs from the landlord even if the occupier is successful, unless two conditions are satisfied. There must be 1236 special circumstances. There may be no special circumstances from the point of view of the law. Secondly, there must have been something in the conduct of the landlord to cause the court to make the order against him.
That would put additional fear into the minds of the tenant against exercising his rights under the Bill and his right to obtain an order. He would be entitled to an order for costs only where he had succeeded on the real issue of whether he should have an extension or not. His right should be preserved to obtain an order from the landlord in those circumstances.
The Minister said at an earlier stage he felt that the success of the Bill would be judged by the extent to which tenants came to new agreements with their landlords. That could have a doubtful connotation if the Bill were weighted too heavily in favour of the landlords, making them able to bring undue pressure upon tenants. Many new agreements may be entered into in those circumstances, but the Bill would not do what it was intended to do, go some way to restore the balance between landlord and tenant.
I have been very interested in reading a pamphlet recently put out by Conservative lawyers on the constitutional and legal position of trade unions. It is an interesting statement of Tory principles which I have not found before in Tory legislation. A passage in this pamphlet reads:The sanctity of contracts freely negotiated is a principle that has bitten deep into the English concept of a free country. It has however long been recognised by Tories that a just application of the doctrine demands that when agreements are made between citizens certain overriding conditions should prevail. If these conditions do not exist, far from justice resulting, grave injustice may occur. The most essential of those conditions is that the parties when contracting should be, broadly speaking, on equal termsTo try to go some way to restoring that balance and enabling the parties to be on equal terms, we have put forward the Amendment, which will preserve the tenant's ordinary right to costs if he is successful, while not putting him in peril of having to pay the landlord's costs merely because he has done that which he is invited to do by the Bill, namely, apply to the court for temporary relief by the suspension of the order for possession.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)
The Amendment from another place improves matters considerably. It deals with costs which oppress the occupier, but it does not go far enough. I should like to give the Minister a practical illustration of its effect.
Suppose an owner brings an action for recovery of possession against an occupier. Assume that it was quite clear that the occupier was perfectly ready to enter into an agreement for three years. He was not able to obtain occupation anywhere else, yet the owner has brought the action for possession. The owner fails and there is, in the words of the Amendment, a suspension of execution.
In that case it would be wrong that the owner should not have to pay costs because the owner has brought before the court the occupier, somebody of little means, the sort of person whom the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The occupier is the person who suffers hardship and therefore has to be protected. He has had to incur costs in meeting the demand made upon him by the owner. Is it not right in that case that the owner should pay costs?
This contingency has been carefully guarded against in the Lords Amendment. The owner should pay the costs, but he is protected from paying costs in the ordinary way. It is not a case where the learned judge looks at the circumstances and says, "This is a case where I ought to use my discretion. I will not award costs against the owner, although he has failed". By virtue of this provision in the Bill the owner is protected. I start with the proposition that an order for costs ought reasonably to be made against the owner who brings proceedings for recovery of possession and fails.
On the other hand, costs ought not to be against an occupier. This is the purpose of our present Amendment. Why is there a distinction between the two? The distinction is this. From a practical point of view we are dealing with two different classes. The owner brings an action for possession against the occupier, who is a person of little means and who has suffered hardship. In the case of the occupier failing he ought not to pay the costs. That does not mean that he 1238 does not pay in some cases. The exception provided for is if the occupier has done something wrong, if his conduct is blameworthy in some way. In these cases there may well be a special reason, and under the proviso the learned judge may order the occupier to pay costs.
We should contrast the two different cases in that way, and appreciate that the real point is that the occupier should be protected against any liability for costs. The owner is already sufficiently protected. The Amendment which is now proposed to the Lords Amendment will fully meet the position. The court will not have power to make an order for costs against the occupier, except in the special circumstances set out in paragraph (b) where he is in default. It ought to have power in the ordinary case to make an order for costs against the owner, as well as in the special case provided for in paragraph (b). In those circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to approach this matter from a practical point of view. If he does so, he will find that the proper solution is to be found in adopting the words of the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) referred to cases where application is made for the possession order and a suspension is granted as being cases in which the owner lost because the suspension was granted. One must remember that the owner has obtained the order for possession for which he has asked, and to that extent he is the successful litigant.
I would not base a particular argument on that, but it seems that what hon. Members opposite have in mind all the time is a picture of the wealthy landlord and the very poor tenant. That may be perfectly true in a number of cases, but it is not always true. There is the poor landlord endeavouring to get possession of premises. The hardship provision in this Clause recognises such a case. We ought always to be hesitant about relieving any litigant of the costs of fighting an action. We have seen the sort of difficulties which arise in granting legal aid certificates. The benefit to be achieved from legal aid overcomes those 1239 difficulties, but undoubtedly there are litigants who say in effect, "Let us have a shot at it; we have nothing to lose".
I believe that any sort of statutory provision we bring in to relieve people of the costs of litigation ought to be studied very carefully I am not at all wedded to this Lords Amendment, but if it is to go into the Bill—here I take up the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—the provision should go in for both parties. The hon. and learned Member put the case of the tenant being frightened to take action because of the costs, but the same might apply to the landlord. He might be scared of taking action because of the costs. I should have thought we could have left this entirely to the discretion of the court. Then the sort of case put by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North would be well met in justice by the second paragraph of the Lords Amendment and the provision for special reasons. If a landlord takes a tenant to court and has no justification for so doing, the court will see that he pays the sanction in costs.
§ Mr. Weitzman
Is the hon. Member saying that if the owner fails in an action that automatically means that there is a special reason for the court to grant costs?
§ Mr. Page
I am not sure what the hon. and learned Member means by saying "fails in an action". That is where there is a difficulty. The landlord may succeed in getting an order for possession but that order is suspended. He has achieved something because he has got the possession settled for a certain period of time. The tenant is coming before the court asking for a concession by asking for the suspension of the possession order. I should have thought that in nearly all these cases the right thing for the court to do would be to make no order for costs, but let each party pay its own costs. There would be some sort of sanction against frivolous litigation and not a penalty against either the landlord or the tenant going to the court and asking for his rights to be settled. If the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is accepted, it will bear hardly on landlords who have not got the funds for litigation, and there are many who have not got those funds.
§ Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)
I have listened with great interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I am not convinced. He is a practising solicitor. I think he will find in the course of his personal experience in dealing with a number of these cases that the real difficulty is experienced by the person who has been in a house for a considerable time and is then faced by the fact that an Act which he never expected to be passed has been passed.
The occupier is in a different position from the landlord. If it were a fact that the landlord, when bringing proceedings, had weighed up the position, he would not have an extension of the period of execution made against him in the court. In other words, if he wants to take an action it is up to him to take it at the right time, so that if he brings the facts before the court he can convince the court that it should grant an extension and not give the tenant the right to have execution suspended.
The hon. Member was not right when he said that the landlord has not failed in his action if suspension is given, because the very fact that suspension is given is in itself an indication that the landlord has brought his case at the wrong time. It is rather important to remember that. It is not just a question of a concession. The occupier has to prove that there are reasons why the order should be suspended. Therefore, when he takes his action the owner has failed if execution of the order is suspended.
In my view, the occupier is in a very much worse position than the owner. It means everything to him. Some of us have seen the desperate manner in which in consequence of this Act occupiers have gone to the courts in order to ascertain what they should do. They have to find somewhere to go. I am not exaggerating; this is my experience and, I am sure, the experience of many others in practice. These people do not know what to do and they are desperate. They are placed in such a position that they cannot go elsewhere. They have nowhere to go. If the order is suspended, at some time it is intended that its execution shall no longer be suspended. An occupier should be given the opportunity of 1241 bringing his case before the court without the additional fear that even if he is successful he is not to have his house.
A man can be ruined by an action of that sort. The question of hardship is one on which courts have been engaged for a considerable period of time. Cases have extended over several hours and have sometimes gone on from one day to another. It requires the best possible skill to get a case properly presented to the court so that the court can make up its mind as to whether the ground of hardship is greater in one direction or the other.
The Amendment says that the occupier should not be deprived of getting costs in the event of his being successful. It is very late in our consideration of this Bill, but I appeal to the Minister to realise that he is dealing with the lives of men and women and not merely with houses. Consequently, it is highly important that some kind of protection should be given to those who have a case. Of course, if it is a frivolous case that is entirely different, and obviously the judge would not grant the costs. If it is a case in which the person who is successful is the occupier, this is a very small concession to make, but a very important one for the occupier. It would entitle him to his house.
I hope that in the circumstances the Minister will consider the matter from the point of view which has been so very well put by my hon. and learned Friends, and to which I have made my feeble addition. I hope that he will ignore the imperfect way in which I have put the matter, and that he will assist occupiers who are really desperate and do not know what to do.
§ The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke)
In dealing with this Amendment, I must first say a word or two about the background of the Lords Amendment which hon. Members opposite seek to amend, because the whole matter hangs together. It is entirely concerned with the question of costs, which was debated at various stages when the Bill was before this House. A fear was expressed, not from one side of the House only, that occupiers might be deterred from seeking the suspension of an order for possession by fear of the costs in which they might be involved. An order 1242 for costs might be made against them, so the argument ran, and it would be wiser for them to play for safety and not to oppose the landlord.
On Report stage, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) moved an Amendment which I was not able to accept. He forcibly argued that as the owner was bound to succeed on the claim for possession, even though the execution of the order might be suspended for a period under this Measure, the court might automatically consider the owner entitled to an order for costs. The Government did not take that view. I expressed my opinion to the House that the courts would almost certainly act as in comparable cases under the Rent Acts and make no orders as to costs. I still believe that would be the position even if this Lords Amendment had not come to us.
I promised at that time that I would carefully examine the arguments and discuss the whole position with the Lord Chancellor, who has great experience of the county courts and their working. The outcome was that we came to the conclusion that, while it would be the general practice of the courts, in the absence of any provision such as this, probably to make no order for costs at all, on balance there would be an advantage in putting the matter beyond doubt and removing the possibility—this was the important point—that some occupiers might be frightened out of even seeking the relief which the Bill holds out to them through fear that they might have to pay the owners' costs as well as their own.
It is solely to still those fears that this Lords Amendment has come to us and, as I think the House appreciates after this debate, its effect will be that in the great generality of cases there will be no order as to costs. Under this Lords Amendment, the court is left with sufficient discretion to enable it to deal with the cases where one party or the other has been guilty of irresponsible conduct; irresponsible conduct, either in bringing the proceedings, or in the handling of them or, perhaps, in involving the other side in additional expense—for instance, by an adjournment that ought never to have been necessary.
The Amendment also excludes the case where the court refuses to grant or revoke a suspension on the same grounds on 1243 which possession of a controlled dwelling could be given under the Rent Acts. Therefore, I do not think that there is any question between us that the courts would and should be guided in any case by their practice in Rent Act cases.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has moved this Amendment, which seeks to draw a distinction between the action of the owner and that of the occupier, and I must frankly say that I cannot accept that we should recognise such a distinction. His Amendment appears to me to be based on the assumption that the owner will be acting in some way less reasonably than the occupier in making application to the court—
§ Mr. Brooke
Yes, that is the distinction. Unless it is assumed that some distinction exists, there is no case whatever for the Amendment—
§ Mr. Mitchison
The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly put the reasons for the Amendment that has come from the Lords as relating to the occupiers' fears. Why should that Amendment give an additional right to the owner?
§ Mr. Brooke
The approach of the Government is different from that of the learned Gentleman. We on the Government side proceed on the basis that this is a straight conflict of right and that, in the normal case, each side should bear its own costs and should not be expected to bear the costs of the other. We are not convinced by the arguments that have been adduced by the other side that there should be assumed to be some difference in the reasonableness of the actions of the two parties.
In fact, there is no ground for believing that in any one of these cases either party will be acting unreasonably. The mere fact that the owner has applied to the court is no indication that he is unreasonable. He may have the strongest possible ground for so applying. That being so, I fail to see the slightest ground for establishing, by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, any difference in the treatment of the two parties before the court. On those grounds, I must invite the House to reject his Amendment.
§ Mr. Weitzman
Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he not say something about the difference in status of the persons; and remember that when he introduced the Bill he said that it was to protect people of small means from suffering hardship?
§ Mr. Brooke
If I may speak again, Mr. Speaker. Let us, if we possibly can—even at this late stage—get out of our heads that there are two classes of persons—the wealthy owners and the poor occupiers—and that all belong to one class or the other. That was my principal point of criticism of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). He spoke of the owner bringing an action for possession as belonging to one category and, against that, he drew the picture of the occupier of little means.
In many cases, of course, the owners will be of little means. It is well worth remembering that the big property company is never likely to succeed under the fourth test in Clause 3, because how a property company will be able to establish greater hardship I do not know. But there may well be cases where an individual owner is a person not of large means at all. However, there is no need for us to argue about that here. It will be argued before the courts.
I must say that I think we have come right back to what has been the fundamental weakness of the Opposition's case in all these debates; the false assumption that the occupier is always a poor man, of small means, and that he deserves a greater degree of sympathy on that ground than does the owner, who is assumed to be a man of considerable substance. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is not a true account of the position.
§ Mr. Weitzman
But does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the owner of small means gets the benefit of the Clause as being a person in special circumstances entitled to costs? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument has no validity at all.
§ Mr. Mitchison
By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman having completely misunderstood, or misstaited, the arguments that were addressed to the House; and having forgotten the purpose of his own Bill, we shall divide the House.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment:—1246
§ The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 204.1247
|Division No. 206.]||AYES||[7.12 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Hayman, F. H.||Popplewell, E.|
|Albu, A. H.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Herbison, Miss M.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Holman, P.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Houghton, Douglas||Probert, A. R.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)||Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Pursey, Comdr. H.|
|Beswick, Frank||Hoy, J. H.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Blackburn, F.||Hubbard, T. F.||Reeves, J.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Rhodes, H.|
|Boardman, H.||Hunter, A. E.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Ross, William|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Royle, C.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Janner, B.||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Kenyon, C.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||King, Dr. H. M.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Champion, A. J.||Lawson, G. M.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Coldrick, W.||Lewis, Arthur||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Logan, D. G.||Stonehouse, John|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||McCann, J.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||MacColl, J. E.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||MacDermot, Niall||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McInnes, J.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Deer, G.||McLeavy, Frank||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Timmons, J.|
|Diamond, John||Mahon, Simon||Viant, S. P.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Weitzman, D.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mason, Roy||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Mayhew, C. P.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mitchison, G. R.||Willey, Frederick|
|Finch, H. J.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Moyle, A.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Oliver, G. H.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Orbach, M.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Oswald, T.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Grey, C. F.||Owen, W. J.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Woof, R. E.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Parker, J.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Pearson, A.|
|Hannan, W.||Peart, T. F.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Pentland, N.||Mr. Simmons and|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Bishop, F. P.||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Black, C. W.||Cooke, Robert|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Body, R. F.||Cooper-Key, E. M.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Bonham Carter, Mark||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.|
|Ashton, H.||Bossom, Sir Alfred||Corfield, Capt F. V.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Boyle, Sir Edward||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.|
|Barber, Anthony||Braine, B. R.||Cunningham, Knox|
|Barlow, Sir John||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Currie, G. B. H.|
|Barter, John||Bryan, P.||Dance, J. C. G.|
|Batsford, Brian||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Deedes, W. F.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Cary, Sir Robert||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Channon, Sir Henry||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Chichester-Clark, R.||Doughty, C. J. A.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Drayson, C. B.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Cole, Norman||du Cann, E. D. L.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Elliot, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Pott, H. P.|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Joseph, Sir Keith||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Fell, A.||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Kershaw, J. A.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Kimball, M.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Kirk, P. M.||Redmayne, M.|
|Foster, John||Lambton, Viscount||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Gammans, Lady||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|Glover, D.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Glyn, Col. Richard H||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Godber, J. B.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Goodhart, Philip||McAdden, S. J.||Russell, R. S.|
|Gower, H. R.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Sharples, R. C.|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||McKibbin, Alan||Shepherd, William|
|Gram, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Green, A.||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Maddan, Martin||Storey, S.|
|Grimond, J.||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Marshall, Douglas||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Mathew, R.||Temple, John M.|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Mawby, R. L.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Moore, Sir Thomas||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Nairn, D. L. S.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Neave, Airey||Wade, D. W.|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Noble, Michael (Argyll)||Wall, Patrick|
|Holt, A. F.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Hope, Lord John||Oakshott, H. D.||Webster, David|
|Hornby, R. P.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Williams, Pau (Sunderland, S.)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Osborne, C.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Page, R. G.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Partridge, E.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Hurd, A. R.||Peel, W. J.|
|Hutchison, Michael clark (E'b'gh, S.)||Peyton, J. W. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Mr. Brooman-White and|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Mr. Hughes-Young.|
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 40, after "Scotland" insert "'costs' means expenses".1248
§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is merely a question of the translation from Anglo-Saxon into Gaelic.
§ Question put and agreed to.