HC Deb 18 February 1959 vol 600 cc469-88
Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, to leave out subsection (2).

As I understand the Bill, subsection (2) proposes to change the term of years in Section 114 (1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. Therefore, we should consider its effect. Its purpose is to reduce from 20 to 10 years the length of time for which certain conditions shall apply. I might perhaps remind the Committee what exactly are the conditions that are now being changed.

The first condition is that the dwelling shall not be used for purposes other than 1hat of a dwelling-house. The second is that the dwelling shall be occupied by the owner or tenant—in other words, it shall not be sold. The third fixes the amount of the rent, which is exceedingly important. The fourth simply requires the owner or occupier to say that these things are being done. The fifth is that in all respects the house shall be maintained in a state in which it is fit for human habitation.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I understand that there is agreement to discuss with the present Amendment the following five Amendments: in page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (3); in line 39, leave out subsection (4); in line 45, leave out subsection (5); in page 15, leave out lines 5 to 12; in page 15, leave out lines 13 to 17.

Mr. Willis

That is agreeable to me, Sir Gordon.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns)

May I get it quite clear. Sir Gordon, how many Amendments we are to discuss together?

The Deputy-Chairman

In addition to the present Amendment, we are discussing the next one and the last four on the Clause.

Mr. Willis

The next of the conditions is that the house shall be kept fit for human habitation. I would draw the Joint Under-Secretary's attention to the fact that those are the exact words which I asked should be used in an earlier Clause, rather than that we should have a double negative. Apart from that, it is a very desirable thing to do. The last paragraph, (f), says: in the event of a tenant assigning his interest in, or otherwise parting with, the possession of, the dwelling, it shall not be lawful for any person in consideration thereof to make any payment other than rent or for the tenant to receive, directly or indirectly, any such payment. All these are very desirable conditions to place upon a person who is receiving improvement grants and it is difficult to understand why the Joint Under-Secretary of State, at this stage, should wish to limit them.

These conditions were laid down in an earlier Act. We had a considerable discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee about them and particularly about the length of time during which they should apply. The argument was that if public money was to be spent in this way we should insist that these conditions should apply for a period of twenty years. That was the decision of the House of Commons.

I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee in a long argument justifying each of these conditions. I am sure that the Committee would agree that they are very desirable conditions and that we should try to maintain them for as long as possible. Unless the Government can give good reason to the contrary, we should insist that these conditions should remain.

The second Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (3), and that subsection seeks to substitute for Section 114 (1, b) of the 1950 Act a paragraph (b) which enumerates certain conditions governing letting. Under the new proposed subsection the dwelling shall, at all times at which it is not occupied … by the applicant … or by a person who on the death of the applicant … and so on …be let or kept available for letting. I cannot see the purpose of changing the wording of the original paragraph (b) in this fashion.

The original paragraph simply states the dwelling shall not be occupied except by the owner thereof or a tenant. That is fairly wide.

I am always very suspicious of the Government, as the Under-Secretary knows, and with very good cause. I do not know whether they have any ulterior motive, but there does not appear to be any good reason for Changing the existing subsection. It was intelligible and it sought to achieve a specific object. Why bring in this matter of letting? Why substitute these words for words which I as a layman could understand? As the Under-Secretary knows, I am not good at understanding Bills. Why substitute all this which is so difficult to follow? Some reason must be given to us. The most important thing is the first Amendment, which cuts down the time from 20 to 10 years in respect of the important conditions imposed upon the person benefiting from an improvement grant.

8.45 p.m.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley

Sir Charles, may we be clear about what Amendments we are taking together?

The Chairman

With this Amendment we are taking the one immediately following, that is, in line 16, and the first four Amendments in page 657 of the Notice Paper, which will fall if this one is not accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Hannan

I am grateful that this point has been made clear, Sir Charles. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred to the 1950 Act, which all hon. Members recognise as the Bible for Scottish housing. Section 114, to which all these Amendments refer, is a most important one. It lays down the conditions to be observed with respect to dwellings, and more particularly with regard to improvement grants.

Taken together, this series of Amendments vitiates the entire Clause. It means that we are getting a new Clause written into the Bill. The Solicitor-General for Scotland should be here because there are phrases in this Clause which, with all due respect, to the Joint Under-Secretary. we shall want to have explained, for example, the question of voluntary alienation; that is, the repayments which those who have received grants should make to the local authority. We want to know what this means.

In regard to the Amendment which seeks to delete subsection (4), I want to refer to the cross-reference in Section 114 of the 1950 Act. Subsection (2) of that Section states that in the event of a breach of any of the conditions to which my hon. Friend has referred … or in the event of the voluntary alienation of a dwelling by the owner thereof during the said period, the following provisions shall have effect … that is, that the proportion of any sums paid by the local authority by way of improvement grant, or the compound interest on that grant shall—this is imperative— … on being demanded by the local authority, forthwith become payable to them by the owner for the time being of the dwelling. This Bill proposes to change what that Act says, and subsection (4) of the Clause states: So much of section one hundred and fourteen of the Act of 1950 as requires the owner of a dwelling in respect of which assistance has been given under section one hundred and eleven of that Act to repay to the local authority in the event of the voluntary alienation of the dwelling … shall cease to have effect. This is the opposite. From what? From what the Act of 1950 provides. There must be some great, compelling reason for such a fundamental change in the Bill compared with the 1950 Act. I have had these laymen v. the Solicitor-General for Scotland jousts upstairs in Committee before, so I made some research and 1 found that the meaning of the word "alienation", according to the encyclopædia, is the action of transferring anything to another.

Miss Herbison


Mr. Hannan

Yes, but there is something further to it than merely selling. What is meant by "voluntary alienation"? Is this not something to do with people going bankrupt? We want to know whether that has any connotation with this, because if that happened we should in the Bill be providing a loophole for those who get grants to sell the property. If they go into liquidation or go bankrupt, it means that the local authority would not have the same standing as all creditors have in Scotland, and in England for that matter

I may be completely wrong. I am probing. We want to be very sure about what we are doing. If "voluntary alienation" means, as I think, going bankrupt, what is the position of local authorities? They are compelled under the Bill to give grants. They ought to have the same safeguards as any other creditors in the matter of the repayment of those grants.

The truth is, is it not, that again the Government are erring on the side of those who have property, the "haves"? They are not thinking fundamentally of the responsibilities which they have to the population.

One could refer in passing to the evasion of death duties, capital appreciation, dividend stripping, and so on. If something of the character that I am suggesting gets into the Amendment, then we shall want a good answer. We believe that this is not even a subsidy. It is a scheme for giving free gifts to the owners of property which is not worth improving.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley

I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) because he is wrong about voluntary alienation, at any rate in one particular, as I shall try to show. Section 111 of the 1950 Act, which makes improvement grants available, says that if grants are made certain conditions have to be observed. They have to be observed for a period of years which we might say at the moment is in dispute. It is twenty years at this moment. In ten minutes' time or twenty minutes' time, or even half an hour's time, it may be ten years.

Mr. Willis

Not until the Bill becomes an Act.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley

At any rate, the period is in dispute. For that period certain conditions have to be observed. Firstly, the house has to be occupied as a private dwellinghouse. Secondly, it has to be occupied by the applicant or by a member of his family or, on the death of the applicant, by another member of his family or by his heir, or it has to be let to a tenant or be occupied by a farm worker who is occupying it by virtue of a service tenancy.

Now I come to the phrase "voluntary alienation". If the owner during his lifetime wants to pass the estate to his heir, I understand that is a situation which is covered by the term "voluntary alienation." Under the terms of Section 114 of the principal Act, on demand by the local authority this heir has to repay the appropriate proportion of the improvement grant, plus compound interest.

Why should that be done in the case of a gift to a member of the family? Perhaps the head of the family is old and unable to look after the estate, or he may have moved away from it. Surely it is in the interests of good estate management that he should be encouraged to pass the estate on to a younger man who will be able to look after it properly. If it is the son taking over the estate, he has to observe all the conditions laid down in the 1950 Act. It may be that the farm cottages will still have to be let to farm workers in pursuance of service tenancies, and the appropriate rental may be only 7s. 6d. a week. Why should that son, on receiving a free gift from his father, have to repay the grants, with compound interest, to the local authority? I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose.

My second point is that 1 have found that in Scotland the county councils vary very much in their interpretation of the provision in Section 114 (2) of the 1950 Act, which lays down that a proportionate amount of the improvement grants shall be repaid on being demanded by the local authority. Some county councils have said that they are required by that provision to demand that the grants shall be repaid even if they think it is unjust, even if they think it is not making for good estate management and even if they can see no valid reason why that should be done. Others say that they have to decide whether to demand repayment, but they do not choose to do so. We find one practice in the Kingdom of Fife and another in Perthshire; indeed, the practice varies widely.

My third reason is that, although I do not say that we ought to follow slavishly what happens in the case of England and Wales, this provision does not appear in legislation for England and Wales. Since it is Government money which is involved, we ought to have the same conditions in Scotland in this respect as in England and Wales. Consequently, I see no reason at all for what is proposed, and my object in rising is to express my opposition to the Amendment which seeks to leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where he got his definition of "alienation"?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley

I did not get the definition from anywhere. I gave an interpretation of the words which I understand to be correct. It means parting with possession of, and, since it is voluntary alienation, it includes giving a free gift to a member of one's family or to anyone else.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

As the person responsible for this part of the 1950 Act—and I mean literally that I was responsible for including this provision which was not in the English Measure —I can explain the meaning much more easily than by dealing with the technical terms of the Bill. It struck me that we were putting public money into improving property for the good of the nation, that that was a good thing, but that there was no reason why the owner of the property should immediately cash in and sell not only the property but the Government grant as well. I thought that if someone were to sell the Government grant, the Government should at least be able to claim back a proportion, according to the time the money had been outstanding.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley

Would it not have been satisfactory to have used the word "sell", which would have avoided all these difficulties?

Mr. Woodburn

If there is a difficulty. I must admit technical responsibility for the drafting, but the original instructions were as I have indicated. The legal authorities, of course, turned my instructions into legal language, but that is what I understood them to mean. If it is proved that the meaning is not what I supposed, the Government could have brought forward an Amendment to clear up all the difficulties.

I have not the slightest objection to mitigating the provisions if the conditions have been too harsh and have proved to be a deterrent. In such a case, there was no reason why the Government should not have moved an Amendment on those lines. However, they propose that from now on people can not only get a grant, but, two or three days afterwards, can sell the grant and go off with the cash.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that. I have a similar case in mind which is nothing to do with the subject we are now discussing. If Government money is granted for the renovation and restoration of property, the person who receives those benefits should not immediately be able to cash in on them and be able to find someone to pay him not only for the property but for the grant as well, thus getting the cash both ways.

If someone pays the seller for the improvement he has made, he should pass what he gets for the improvement back to the Government. Otherwise, it should be open to a local authority to say that the owner of property has not sold the improvement and therefore the authority does not want the money back. If the Government amended the Bill in that sense, I could see some good reason for it, but merely to say that someone prepared to be dishonest with the Government can get away with the swag is immoral.

Mr. J. N. Browne

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred to the Amendment in subsection (2), the reduction of the period of twenty to ten years. One of the conditions of the standard grant is that after the work has been done a dwelling shall last for no less than fifteen years. It is thus illogical to attach conditions to the grant which continue for twenty years.

Apart from that, we have now had some experience of improvement grants and all the indications are that twenty years was too long and acted as a deterrent. Certainly ten years is less of a deterrent than twenty years. It may be asked why we should have ten years and not fifteen or twelve years, or some other period. We are anxious—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley)—to have Scottish grants on principles similar to those in England and Wales; and we have suggested a period of ten years for exactly the same reasons as those which led to the use of ten years in the English legislation. We want as much improvement as we can get, and we think that ten years is the right period and that twenty years acts as a deterrent, since such a period is too long.

Mr. Willis

Why not have fifteen years, the same as the standard grants?

Mr. Browne

The period is ten years, whether it is in respect of an improvement or a standard grant.

The hon. Member complained that the words referring to the owner or tenant had been taken out and what he referred to as jargon put in their place.

Mr. Willis

Coining a word from an hon. Member opposite, I said that it was a garrulous subsection.

Mr. Browne

I will not put words into my hon. Friend's mouth. It may be that he used them, and it may be that he did not. In Scotland it is now a condition that if a house is to qualify for the improvement grant it must not be occupied except by the owner or the tenant. As the hon. Member may not realise, this is a very much more restrictive condition than is now enforced in England and Wales.

Mr. Willis

We are not concerned with England and Wales.

Mr. Browne

Oh, yes, we are trying to bring these matters into line. I do not see why conditions in Scotland should be more restrictive than they are in England. We want improvements in Scotland just as much as in England. In England and Wales a house may be occupied by a member of the owner's family or a person who, on the death of the owner, has obtained the owner's interest in the house or in the proceeds of its sale. There is no good reason for the difference, and the purpose of the new paragraph is to bring the conditions into line with those of England and Wales.

Paragraphs (b, i) and (b, ii) are designed to give Scotland the same conditions as already exist in England and Wales, and paragraph (b, iii) adds for Scotland the same conditions as have been added in Clause 11 (3) in respect of England and Wales. This permits the occupation of an improved house, without breach of the conditions, after three years from the date on which the conditions begin to apply, by a person who has become beneficially entitled to the applicant's interest in the property. That means, principally, the person who buys the property from the applicant.

Hon. Members know that we do not slavishly follow England and Wales in all our legislation, but we feel that we are right in this case to make parallel arrangements in the two countries. Furthermore, people change their jobs, and I do not think that we should unnecessarily restrict them in changing their homes.

Now I come to the question of voluntary alienation. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) stated correctly what alienation was. The definition is in Section 126 of the 1950 Act, and I will read it. Voluntary alienation includes: alienation by sale, gift, or other transaction or transactions whereby the right or interest of the owner is transferred to another person, and the granting of a lease for a period of thirty years or upwards, but does not include a transfer by operation of law. This voluntary alienation provision, as my hon. Friend said, is applicable to Scotland and not elsewhere, and has always been a very sore point with Scottish owners, who feel that they are unjustly penalised. We have had continual representations from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and similar interests.

Mr. Woodburn

I gather from what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said that some people have been making use of this provision. Can he give us an example of anybody who was penalised by this provision in the existing Act who did not sell not only the property but the Government grant part of the property? Is there any reason why, if such a person grumbles because he is not allowed to do that, any sympathy should be extended to him by hon. Members?

Mr. Browne

He was in a much worse position than a man who had improved a house in England or Wales, and I have never understood why that should be. But if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will develop my argument. I said we had had representations from the Scottish Landowners' Federation and also we have had representations from the Association of County Councils.

Mr. Ross

Have there been any from the tenants?

Mr. Browne

No, but from the Association of County Councils which made representations at the end of 1957 or the beginning of 1958—I have the letter before me.

When in 1949 the Bill was introduced which later became the Housing (Scotland) Act, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) incorporated into it this set of stringent conditions which we are now abolishing in order to bring the position in Scotland into line with that of England. The right hon. Gentleman introduced voluntary alienation, and that we also wish to dispose of. I desire to be fair about this. It has been a most interesting point to consider. During the Committee stage of that Bill there was no great battle over the question of voluntary alienation. The late Mr. Walter Elliot moved an Amendment to delete voluntary alienation, but he withdrew it after a short discussion. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire felt that, without the voluntary alienation provision, there might be a danger of too much exploitation of the then housing shortage.

Things at that time were very bad. They are still bad in some parts of the country but since then Scotland has built about 300,000 houses and provided homes for nearly one-third of the population. We believe that the disadvantages have long outweighed the advantages. I agree that it is difficult to provide clear evidence on this point but we are reasonably satisfied that voluntary alienation has a deterrent effect on the use made of grants—

Mr. Woodburn

How can the hon. Gentleman justify the selling of money given by the Government in the form of a grant? Suppose a man receives a grant by which his house is improved and then he sells the house within a year. Suppose the house is worth £500 before the receipt of the grant and becomes worth £1,000 when the improvements have been carried out. We should not mind the owner selling the house for £500, but how can the hon. Gentleman justify giving such an owner £500 of Government money which would enable him to improve the house sufficiently to sell it for £1,000?

Mr. Browne

If the House is sold to someone other than a person coming within the categories mentioned in subsection (3, b (i)) or (ii), the owner cannot sell for three years. If the purchaser cannot live in the property himself, he must let it at a controlled rental for the remainder of the ten-year period. So that the right hon. Gentleman is not correct in what he says.

I was about to conclude by reading what the late Walter Elliot said during the Committee stage in 1949. I am afraid that the ingenuity of our people is so great that we set ourselves to hedge and guard against any possible loophole of evasion to such an extent that we wall ourselves up in a airtight chamber in which we subsequently expire. We have had experience of that under the rating system, by which it was desired to pass a certain amount of burden to owners. Finally he said this, which, in the event, has proved right. I say that the danger that a house occasionally may become vacant and be sold at a greater price is so distant and remote that I think the slow-up of this Measure, which will be caused by guarding against that, will be far greater than the advantage that can be obtained by guarding against what is a very distant contingency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 26th May, 1949; c. 2713–4.] That may not have been right when it was said, but it is certainly so today.

9.15 p.m.

Miss Herbison

The Joint Under-Secretary's speech shows that he is completely willing to be a lackey of the English Minister of Housing and Local Government. Time after time he said that these changes were being made in this part of the Bill because they had been made in the English part. That is the very weakest reason he could give to any Scottish Member and to the Scottish people who are interested in this matter.

There is something even worse than that. In the information that he let slip, the hon. Gentleman has also shown that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are willing to be the lackeys of the Scottish landlords' representatives. To tell us that they have had representations from this organisation—and we all know something about this organisation—as a result of which these Amendments were made to the 1950 Act, shows that this Government, far from being concerned with improving Scotland's shocking housing conditions, is much more concerned with ensuring that there are profits for the landlords.

What does voluntary alienation mean to the ordinary man and woman in the street? In the main, it means that a man is to be allowed to sell a house after he has had a substantial grant—not a loan—from the local authority. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), when Secretary of State, did the correct thing when he said in the 1950 Act that not only would a certain part of the money have to be returned, depending on how long previously the grant had been made, but that compound interest would also have to be paid.

What do we now find? This Government says, "Oh, no, we shall get rid of that provision, because the Scottish landlords' representatives have asked us to do so." What about the Scottish local authorities? Whose money is it that the landlords will get? It is public money— the money of the Scottish local authorities. This Government, which pretends to look after the public interest, which time and time again has said in Scotland and all over Britain how careful they would be of public money, are ready to squander it on the landlords in Scotland.

I should like to have referred to many more matters, but I know that my hon. Friends are very keen to show their resentment of these provisions and, since we cannot get the Minister to accept any of our Amendments, we have decided that we must vote for them in the Division Lobby.

Mr. J. N. Browne

I must answer the hon. Lady. I am quite unashamed— [Interruption.]I am prepared to follow England if it is wise to do so. The hon. Lady, presumably, would not do so even if it were the wise thing. Again, she said that we are the lackeys of the landlords and asked about the local authorities, whose ratepayers are involved. I will read two brief sentences from a letter dated 22nd February, 1958, from the Association of County Councils of Scotland. It reads: I am to advise you that this Association desires to make the following submissions, namely; (a) The conditions attaching to improvement grants in Scotland should broadly be assimilated to those applicable in England and Wales under the corresponding Housing Act, 1949."— that is subsection (3)— (b)"This would mean that the reference to 'voluntary' alienation in Sections 114 and 126 of the Housing (Scotland) Act. 1950. should be deleted. That is subsection (4).

Miss Herbison

At one point in the Bill we are told that the local authorities have a duty put on them, but this Government decide that the local authorities are not to be allowed to make up their own minds about these grants. Now. the Minister says that this letter has been received. We on this side of the Committee, despite any letter that has come from the Scottish County Councils Association, will be very careful to safeguard the ratepayers' and the taxpayers' money in this country, and it is only by adhering to these Amendments and voting for them that we shall have the chance of doing that under this Government.

Mr. T. Fraser

The Joint Under-Secretary was careful to make a quota- tion from the Scottish County Councils Association, which represents the Tory-controlled local authorities in Scotland. He was very careful not to tell us what was the view of the Convention of Royal Burghs or of the Cities, which are the

authorities that represent at least nine-tenths of the houses likely to be improved under the terms of this Clause.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 138.

Division No. 48.] AYES [9.21 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) Neave, Airey
Altken, W. T. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Green, A. Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Gurden, Harold Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Arbuthnot, John Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Armstrong, C. W. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Page, R. G.
Baldwin, Sir Archer Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Peel, W. J.
Balniel, Lord Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Barlow, Sir John Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Pitt, Miss E. M.
Barter, John Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n) Pott, H. P.
Batsford, Brian Holland-Martin, C. J. Powell, J. Enoch
Baiter, Sir Beverley Holt, A. F. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hornby, R. P. Rawlinson, Peter
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Redmayne, M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Horobin, Sir Ian Rees-Davies, W. R.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Bingham, R. M. Howard, John (Test) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bishop, F. P. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Russell, R. S.
Body, R. F. Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Hurd, Sir Anthony Sharples, R. C.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hutchison, MichaelClark (E'b'gh, S.) Shepherd, William
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Spearman, Sir Alexander
Brooman-White, R. C. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Speir, R. M.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Joseph, Sir Keith Stevens, Geoffrey
Burden, F. F. A. Kerby, Capt. H. B. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert Kerr, Sir Hamilton Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Channon, H. P. G. Kershaw, J. A. Storey, S.
Chichester-Clark, R. Kirk, P. M. Studholme, Sir Henry
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Lambton, Viscount Summers, Sir Spencer
Cooper-Key, E. M. Leburn, W. G. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Corfield, F. V. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Teeling, W.
Cunningham, Knox Linstead, Sir H. N. Temple, John M.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Dance, J. C. G. Longden, Gilbert Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Davidson, Viscountess Loveys, Walter H. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Deedes, W. F. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
de Ferrantl, Basil Macdonald, Sir Peter Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. McLean, Neil (Inverness) Vickers, Miss Joan
Drayson, G. B. Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Duncan, Sir James Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Maddan, Martin Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Wall, Patrick
Farey-Jones, F. W. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Markham, Major Sir Frank Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Freeth, Denzil Marlowe, A. A. H. Webster, David
Garner-Evans, E. H. Marshall, Douglas Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Gibson-Watt, D. Mathew, R. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glyn, Col. Richard H. Mawby, R. L. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Goodhart, Phillip Medlicott, Sir Frank Woollam, John Victor
Gower, H. R. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Graham, Sir Fergus Nabarro, G. D. N. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Bryan and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.
Abse, Leo Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Crossman, R. H. S.
Ainsley, J. W. Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Cullen, Mrs. A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Awbery, S. S. Brown, Thomas (Ince) de Freitas, Geoffrey
Bacon, Miss Alice Burton, Miss F. E. Delargy, H. J.
Balfour, A. Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edelman, M.
Beswick, Frank Champion, A. J. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Blackburn, F. Cliffe, Michael Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Boardman, H. Coldrick, W. Fernyhough, E.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Boyd, T. C. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. MacColl, J. E. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) MacDermot, Niall Ross, William
Gibson, C. W. McInnes, J. Royle, C.
Gooch, E. G. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Short, E. W.
Greenwood, Anthony Mahon, Simon Skeffington, A. M.
Grey, C. F. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mann, Mrs. Jean Smith, Ellis (Stoke S.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Sorensen, R. W.
Hamilton, W. W. Mason, Roy Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Hannan, W. Mayhew, C. P. Sparks, J. A.
Hayman, F. H. Mikardo, Ian Spriggs, Leslie
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Mitchison, G. R. Steele, T.
Herbison, Miss M. Moody, A. S. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Holmes, Horace Mort, D. L. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Houghton, Douglas Mulley, F. W. Swingler, S. T.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Sylvester, G. O.
Hoy, J. H. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oram, A. E. Thornton, E.
Hunter, A. E. Paget, R. T. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Palmer, A. M. F. Usborne, H. C.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.) Warbey, W. N.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Parker, J. Watkins, T. E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Pentland, N. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Plummer, Sir Leslie Wilkins, W. A.
Kenyon, C. Popplewell, E. Willey, Frederick
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Prentice, R. E, Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
King, Dr. H. M. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Lawson, G. M. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Probert, A. R. Winterbottom, Richard
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Lewis, Arthur Randall, H. E. Woof, R. E.
Lindgren, G. S. Rankin, John Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Logan, D. G. Reynolds, G. W.
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson Roberts, Albert (Normanton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McAlister, Mrs. Mary Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.
Mr. J. N. Browne

I beg to move, in page 14. line 27, after "thereof" to insert: or by a member of the family of such a person". This Amendment extends to a member of the family of anyone acquiring interest in property on the death of the applicant the same rights as are given under sub-paragraph (iii) to a member of the family who acquires an interest

after three years. This is logical and fair.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (4).—[Miss Her hi son.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 169. Noes 139.

Division No. 49.] AYES [9.31 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gurden, Harold
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Corfield, F. V. Heald Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood) Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Arbuthnot, John Cunningham, Knox Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Armstrong, C. W. Dance, J. C. G. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Baldwin, Sir Archer Davidson, Viscountess Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Balniel, Lord D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)
Barlow, Sir John Deedes, W. F. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Barter, John de Ferranti, Basil Holt, A. F.
Batsford, Brian Digby, Simon Wingfield Hornby, R. P.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Drayson, G. B. Horobin, Sir Ian
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Duncan, Sir James Howard, John (Test)
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Elliott, R. W. (N e'castle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral J.
Bingham, R. M. Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Bishop, F. P. Farey-Jones, F. W. Hurd, Sir Anthony
Body, R. F. Fell, A. Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Bossom, Sir Alfred Fisher, Nigel Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Boyle, Sir Edward Fletcher-Coolie, C. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Freeth, Denzil Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Garner-Evans, E. H. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Gibson-Watt, D. Joseph, Sir Keith
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Glyn, Col. Richard H. Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Burden, F. F. A. Goodhart, Philip Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Cary, Sir Robert Gower, H. R. Kershaw, J. A,
Channon, H. P. G. Graham, Sir Fergus Kirk, P. M.
Chichester-Clark, R. Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) Lambton, Viscount
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Leburn, W. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Green, A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Noble, Michael (Argyll) Summers, Sir Spencer
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.) Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Linstead, Sir H. N. Page, R. G. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Lloyd, Maj, Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Peel, W. J. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Longden, Gilbert Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Teeling, W.
Loveys, Walter H. Pitt, Miss E. M. Temple, John M.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Pott, H. P. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Powell, J. Enoch Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Macdonald, Sir Peter Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Rawlinson, Peter Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Redmayne, M. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Rees-Davies, W. R. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Maddan, Martin Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Vickers, Miss Joan
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Russell, R. S. Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank Sharples, R. C. Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)
Marlowe, A. A. H. Shepherd, William Wall, Patrick
Marshall, Douglas Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Mathew, R. Spearman, Sir Alexander Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mawby, R. L. Speir, R. M. Webster, David
Medlicott, Sir Frank Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Stevens, Geoffrey Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Neave, Airey Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Woollam, John Victor
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) Storey, S.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Studholme, Sir Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr Bryan and Mr J. E. B. Hill.
Abse, Leo Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Pentland, N.
Ainsley, J. W. Herbison, Miss M. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Holmes, Horace Popplewell, E.
Awbery, S. S. Houghton, Douglas Prentice, R. E.
Bacon, Miss Alice Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Balfour, A. Hoy, J. H. Price, Philips (Glouestershire, W.)
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Probert, A. R.
Beswick, Frank Hunter, A. E. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Blackburn, F. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Randall, H. E.
Boardman, H. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Rankin, John
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Reynolds, G. W.
Boyd, T. C. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Kenyon, C. Rogers, George (Kensington. N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Ross, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince) King, Dr. H. M. Royle, C.
Burton, Miss F. E. Lawson, G. M. Short, E. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Skeffington, A. M.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Champion, A. J. Lewis, Arthur Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Cliffe, Michael Lindgren, G. S. Sorensen, R. W.
Coldrick, W. Logan, D. G. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sparks, J. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McAlister, Mrs. Mary Spriggs, Leslie
Crossman, R. H. S. MacColl, J. E. Steele, T.
Cullen, Mrs. A. MacDermot, Niall Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) McInnes, J. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey McKay, John (Wallsend) Swingler, S. T.
Delargy, H. J. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Sylvester, G. O.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mahon, Simon Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edelman, M. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thornton, E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mann, Mrs. Jean Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Usborne, H. C.
Fernyhough, E. Mason, Roy Warbey, W. N.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty) Mayhew, C. P. Watkins, T. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mikardo, Ian White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Mitchison, G. R. Wilkins, W. A.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) Moody, A. S. Willey, Frederick
Gibson, C. W. Mort, D. L. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Gooch, E. G. Mulley, F. W. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Greenwood, Anthony Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Grey, C. F. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Winterbottom, Richard
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oram, A. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Paget, R. T. Woof, R. E.
Hamilton, W. W. Palmer, A. M. F. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hannan, W. Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Hayman, F. H. Parker, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.