HC Deb 22 May 1969 vol 784 cc771-88

.—(1) Where a tenancy is both a protected tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act, 1968 and a long tenancy within the meaning of Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, then,—

  1. (a) if the conditions specified in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied with respect to it, nothing in Part VII of the Rent Act, 1968 (premiums &c.) or the enactments replaced by it shall apply or be deemed ever to have applied to the tenancy;
  2. (b) if any of those conditions are not satisfied with respect to it but the tenancy was granted before 27th November, 1967 Schedule (amount of premium permissible under section (other long tenancies)) to this Act shall apply and be deemed always to have applied to it.

(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section are—

  1. (a) that the tenancy is not, and cannot become, terminable before the end of the term for which it was granted by notice given to the tenant; and
  2. (b) that, unless the tenancy was granted in pursuance of Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, the sums payable by the tenant otherwise than in respect of rates, services, repairs, maintenance or insurance are not, under the terms of the tenancy, varied or liable to be varied within twenty years of the date when it was granted nor, thereafter, more than once in any twenty-one years; and
  3. (c) that assignment or underletting is not precluded by the terms of the tenancy and, if it is subject to any consent, there is neither a term excluding section 144 of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (no payment in nature of fine) nor a term making a request for consent dependent on a previous offer to surrender the tenancy.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the recovery, in pursuance of any judgment given or order or agreement made before 20th May 1969, of any amount which it was not lawful to receive under the law in force at the time it was received.

(4) In this section and in Schedule (amount of premium permissible under section (other long tenancies)) 'grant' includes continuance and renewal and 'premium' has the same meaning as in Part VII of the Rent Act 1968.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this Clause we can also take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), in line 8, leave out 'but the tenancy was granted before 27th November 1967' and Government Amendment No. 126.

Mr. Graham Page

On a point of order. May we ask that the Amendment be called for a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes. Mr. Speaker has agreed to the Amendment to new Clause 3 being called for a Division when the time arises.

Mr. MacColl

Clause 70 of the Bill emerged from Committee in a rather drastically revised form. It dealt with the problems of long leases under the two-thirds rateable value, where services had increased in value and, as a result, the property had come into rent control which had the incidental effect that premiums could not be charged. While we were discussing that particular problem in Committee we also had before us a new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) on the wider issue of long leases where the rent reserve, apart from services, was over two-thirds of the rateable value. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave the undertaking that we would look at the problem facing the holders of these long leases and see what we could do about it.

During this period we have held consultations with the Law Commission and given some thought to the drafting of the new Clause. This is the result of our deliberations. It is on substantially the same lines as that proposed by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. Its main effect is to take out of Part VII of the Rent Act, which deals with premiums, long tenancies which fulfil certain conditions set out in subsection (2). These are, first, that the lease cannot be determined by the landlord before the end of the term for which it was granted—it must be more than 21 years certain. Secondly, the rent cannot be increased more often than once every 21 years, and thirdly, the tenant is able to assign the lease. This deals with the main point we were discussing upstairs, that if one had a lease where it was not possible to increase it less than every 21 years, the lessee would be protected from abuse of exemption from premiums.

9.15 p.m.

We realised that there was a problem about what was to happen about people who bought long leases when it was legal to do so and sold them after it had become illegal, in 1967, without realising that it was now illegal. Such people might be at the mercy of unscrupulous purchasers hoping to have a saleable lease and demanding back the money they paid for it. Because of that possibility this exemption is to be retrospective to 20th May, the date when the Clause was published.

The Schedule deals with a rather tricky point. There may be people who lawfully bought long leases which do not come within the Clause. If they lawfully purchased before 27th November, 1967, the Schedule provides that on a further assignment they may charge a premium which bears the same proportion to the premium already paid as the remaining term which is being assigned bears to the term for which the lease was acquired.

That is the broad outline of the new Clause. If some points arise on it I will do my best to clear them up.

Mr. Allason

As the Parliamentary Secretary said, Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act brought a great deal of grief with it. We have ironed out in one new Clause which was inserted in the Bill in Committee one difficulty, but there was another difficulty which we pressed during Committee and received the assurance which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. This new Clause is the result.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having brought the Clause forward fairly quickly, but the timing is unfortunate. The notice was given on Monday so we were able to see this new Clause only on Tuesday. That did not give a great deal of time to go into it in detail to see whether it entirely meets the case. Nevertheless, it is better to receive it on the Floor of the House than that it should first appear in another place and we should see it only as a Lords Amendment.

The cases with which this Clause is intended to deal are where there are obvious ground rents but they do not come within the technical definition of being two-thirds of the loss of the rateable value. In consequence, the difficulty has been that the owner-occupier has been unable to dispose of his lease even though he has a valuable commodity and probably paid substantially to obtain the lease. The Clause meets at least some of our proposals. I have one reservation about it, but I think the House will agree that the essential features of these cases is that where there is a long lease and a fixed rent for a period of 21 years or more the rent is likely to be below the market rent and, therefore, merits a premium.

I congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on an innovation, in that the Clause speaks of … the Rent Act 1968 … or the enactments replaced by it … That precisely meets a point we made in Committee on another occasion. It was said to be impossible to carry out our suggestion. We were told that we must always deal with the previous enactments even though they may have been repealed. I am glad to see this improvement in drafting, which we suggested.

Subsection (1)(a) deals with the cases we mentioned where there is a long lease at a fixed rent, fulfilling the conditions set out in subsection (2). These are, first, that the lease cannot be terminated before the end of the term by action by the Landlord; second, that the rent cannot be varied; and, third, that an assignment or under-letting is permitted.

I am worried about the condition in subsection (2)(a) that the tenancy is not or cannot become terminable before the end of the term for which it is granted. If it is granted for 21 years, well and good, for this will bring it within the conditions. But if it has been granted for a period of 42 years with a break at either side at 21 years I imagine that this would take it outside subsection (1)(a), because the condition of an unbroken lease would not be fulfilled. In these circumstances, purely fortuitously because of the way in which the lease is drawn up, it, will come under subsection (1)(b), where it does not receive the same treatment; it is treated under the Schedule, which is very different. Is that really what the Government intend? Surely where there is a lease of 21 years certain they would wish it to come within subsection (1)(a). It is too late to consider Amendments, but perhaps they would like to consider the wording and see whether it is entirely satisfactory.

Next we come to the conditions under which the new Schedule applies. These are cases which did not argue in Committee but the Government have covered them. They are cases where the lease is breakable over the whole of its term. I have mentioned the lease where there may be an option to break at 21 years in a 42-year lease. But it is difficult to see what is intended here, because the reference is to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, and to the definition of a long lease in that, which is: … the expression 'long tenancy' means a tenancy granted for a term of years certain exceedingly twenty-one, years whether or not subsequently extended by act of the parties or by any enactment. Surely that means that it would be possible to terminate the lease by unilateral act of the landlord in under the 21 years. It is thus a little difficult to see how subsection (2)(a) will operate. Subsection (2)(b) refers to the rent and one can conceive that during the 21 years a tariff may be fixed over the lease—for example, the first seven years at £100, the second seven years at £110 and the third seven years at £120. I take it that this is the sort of case which the Government are covering. I cannot understand how the third case can arise, because if assigning to another letting is prohibited I cannot see how this Schedule comes into the Bill at all.

I understand that the Schedule means that the tenant—the owner-occupier—cannot obtain the market value of his tenancy but only a proportion, in relation to the length of the lease left, of what he has paid in premium or in repairs or improvements to the property. It is rather difficult to see whether this is entirely reasonable in the circumstances I have outlined. Although there is a term of years, because there is a variation in the fixed terms of the lease, why should there be a severe restriction forcing any owner-occupier in these circumstances to take very much less than the market value?

The date in the new Clause is the date of the coming into force of the Leasehold Reform Act. It is unlikely that anyone immediately after that time would have started granting long leases at rents just over two-thirds of the rateable value. But it is possible with an existing lease of that type, to assign and possibly renegotiate on some minor clause for the benefit of a new tenant. I take it that that would count as a new tenancy and therefore would fall outside the terms of the lease. I do not suppose there are many such cases, but the point is why there should be a cut-off at a certain time. Why should we not in future grant long leases at low rents? There is an artificial restriction on leases. Either one grants a lease at a rack rent or one grants a lease at less than two-thirds of the rateable value, in which case one is allowed to charge a premium. Between the two, there is a gap artificially inspired by the Government.

For many people a very low rent and a substantial premium is a satisfactory way of obtaining security for their house. But those who cannot afford the higher premium may prefer to pay a larger rent and a lower premium, but to have the 21 years security on their house. Those people are being left out in the cold at present. The Government have produced an artifical distinction. They now have an opportunity to remove that distinction by accepting our Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Rossi

I should like to thank the Government for introducing the new Clause. I also wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the mild and apologetic way in which he introduced it. He gave full credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who put forward the proposal in Standing Committee upstairs.

The proposal has far earlier origins than the Standing Committee on the Bill. The matter was discussed at length, and almost ad nauseam, during the Committee stage of the Leasehold Reform Bill. I should like to remind hon. Members of the history of Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act, as it now is, which is dealt with in this new Clause. That Section was involved in one of the Prime Minister's dramatic interventions to which we have become so accustomed, in which he told us, quite irrelevant to the whole question of leasehold reform—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot go into history and political characterisation. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Rossi

Most regretfully, Mr. Speaker, I must follow your Ruling. I thought that it was relevant to the discussion to consider the way in which the new Clause had evolved and had found its way on to the Notice Paper. Perhaps I started the historical treatise a little too far back in point of time, but I thought that if we had the background we could see the matter in perspective. I leave it at that.

It is a valid point that time after time during debates on what is now Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act, we urged leases in which premiums paid should be excluded from this particular effect. Time and again the Parliamentary Secretary, in his usual gentle, mild way, deflected our attack on his proposals, saying that it was contrary to his principle or that it was not practical, or by giving one of his excuses.

The hon. Gentleman would not listen when we made the kind of proposals relating to valuations which we discussed on the last new Clause. He would not listen to our arguments that if he persisted in Section 39 as it was proposed, there would be hardship and anomaly. So he legislated and Section 39 became law. He well knows the representations which have been made to him since that Section went on to the Statute Book. It involved a number of people who had bought long leases for substantial premiums and who then, because of the provisions of Section 39, had on their hands a completely diminished asset, which they could not sell and upon which they could not obtain building society mortgages.

This was a dreadful state of affairs for a great many people. If hon. Members opposite had discarded for a moment their party political bias and had listened to reason and argument, we should have been saved this debate this evening. It would be completely unnecessary. I am glad that no hon. Member opposite has had the temerity to say, "We can congratulate ourselves on bringing forward the new Clause and helping these people". At least they have learnt from the last debate that that is not on and that we shall not allow them to get away with it.

We have tabled an Amendment in line 8 to delete the words but the tenancy was granted before 27th November, 1967". I assume that those words mean that if a lease was granted after 27th November, 1967, even if it were granted at a premium after that date, if it were for 21 years or more and the two-thirds rateable value principle applies, it is caught by Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act.

We wish to avoid that, and that is the reason for our Amendment.

We see no reason why there should be a differentiation between a lease granted or transferred at a premium before this particularly artificial date and a lease granted, as many leases have been granted, after 27th November, 1967, in which this kind of hardship exists. Even for the future, I cannot see why it should not be possible to grant leases of more than 21 years at a premium and for them to retain a market value.

I can understand the Government's feeling. This date is a bit of face-saving on their part. They want to justify Section 39 of the Act. They recognise that some people may have been caught and treated very harshly who had leases granted before the Bill was promulgated and they take 27th November as the date on which people should not have granted leases on those terms, knowing what the Bill contained. Therefore, we say that we should help people who have been caught by the Measure but that from now on they must be wise and not do this kind of thing. What they do not consider is the value of being able to create and grant leaseholds of this nature at a premium and have a market for them. The Government are mistaken in being so restrictive. For that reason, we seek to delete the words in line 8 of the new Clause.

The next matter which causes me concern is subsection (2)(a) of the new Clause, which provides that a lease will not have the benefit of the new Clause if it can be brought to an end, before its natural expiration in terms of length of years, by a notice given to the tenant. I assume that the Government have in mind the situation where a lease of more than 21 years is granted, but where the landlord has the right to terminate that lease before the 21 years are up by serving on the tenant a notice saying that the term must come to an end in three or six months; in other words, the lease can be for less than 21 years because it can be terminated by notice. This situation is probably what the Government have in mind and wish to exclude by this subsection.

I wonder whether the Government might be running into other difficulties. There may be a long lease terminable by notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act where there has been a breach of covenant. The court can grant relief against the lease being terminated in that way, and ultimately a landlord will rely upon the order of the court, but the order of the court will be merely to confirm or otherwise the notice that has been served.

Technically—I think I am right in this, but the Minister may wish to check it with his legal advisers—it is possible for a long lease to be terminable by notice, but not in the situation which he envisages here of a landlord being able at will to give a straight notice saying that the lease will come to an end in three months' time. It is possible under Section 146 to terminate the lease for a breach of covenant. If I am right on this, every conceivable lease is excluded. Virtually every long lease contains covenants as to repairs, for example, and Section 146 will apply.

If I am right in my interpretation, subsection (2) will make complete nonsense of new Clause 3 in its present form.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Does my hon. Friend consider that if a lease is broken because the rent is not paid a similar state of affairs will exist?

Mr. Rossi

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The non-payment of rent is another example. There may be bankruptcy, composition with creditors and, with a company—we are not here concerned with companies—a winding-up order not in pursuance of amalgamation and reconstruction, and so on, with which I feel sure most of my hon. Friends are familiar.

There is also the question of a notice for a rebuilding clause. A lease may contain a clause under which the landlord has the right to serve three or six months' notice terminating the lease after a given period of years, very often after the first five, six or seven years, if he genuinely needs to reconstruct or redevelop. This is quite common, particularly in the inner parts of our cities.

That kind of clause is not directed to evasion of the Rent Acts. Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act was directed specifically to the evasion of the Rent Acts by creating leases for 21 years and one day, with the right to terminate the lease before that period had elapsed by simple notice. I am not now discussing a simple notice. I am discussing a notice where a lease is terminable on a genuine intention to redevelop. Is it the intention of the Government that such a lease should not have the protection of new Clause 3?

9.45 p.m.

Subsection (2)(b) says that where there is a rent review clause for more often than once in every 21 years, such a lease will not have the benefit of new Clause 3, but if the lease has resulted from the operation of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, then it does get the benefit of the new Clause. In other words, if someone is a long leaseholder and exercises his right under the Leashold Reform Act, and instead of asking for freehold, asks for a new lease for 50 years and that lease gives him rent review clauses more frequently than once in every 21 years, as can be done under the Act, then that kind of lease has the benefits of new Clause 3 and could be sold at a premium without any illegality.

Why should that kind of lease be so far different from an ordinary lease say, of 50 years, granted by negotiation between the freeholder and someone else? What is the magic in this? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would explain and tell us what is the difference between a lease granted under the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act, and one freely negotiated between the parties where the terms could be identical?

I mention (2)(c) with a little diffidence because I am not as familiar as I might be with Section 144 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. By the wording in brackets I assume that the intention here is this, that where a lease contains a condition that the leaseholder may not assign or transfer his lease without the consent of the landlord—and then the condition goes on to exclude the provisions of Section 144 which prohibit the charging of a fine or an increased rent or a premium—the benefit of the new Clause shall not apply. Putting it another way, if a landlord can, as a condition of his consent, charge an increased rent or premium, then that lease will not have the benefit of the new Clause.

I seem to recall, and I may be mistaken, that in Section 17 or 19 of the 1927 Act it is said that it is illegal, as a condition of a consent for assignment of a lease, to say that an increased rent or premium shall be charged. That is why it is today common form in leases to have an absolute prohibition against assignment of leases, because then the tenant has to go cap in hand to the landlord and say, "I know that you have told me that I cannot under any circumstances assign my lease, but please let me do so". The landlord then asks, "What is it worth?" and he gets his premium that way. If he puts in the words shall not assign without the consent of the landlord first of all, the words which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld are immediately imported by Statute, under the 1927 Act, and it has been judicially decided that that means that the charging of a premium, increasing rent, is illegal. If I am right about that, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain the meaning of the reference to Section 144 of the Law of Property Act, 1925.

The next matter on which I seek the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary relates to subsection (3). We are told there that where there has been a judgment or agreement made before 20th May, 1969, concerning the payment of recovery of a sum of money, nothing in the new Clause shall prevent that payment or recovery being made. I understand the position to be that, under Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act, it has become illegal in the circumstances that we are considering to charge a premium for a lease.

It may have happened on many occasions that someone has assigned or transferred a lease for a sum of money in contravention of that Section and, having paid his money, the person acquiring the lease may then have said, "The payment that I made was illegal. I want my money back", as he was and still is entitled to do until the new Clause becomes law.

We are now told that where someone has been tricked into selling his lease for a premium to someone who has taken the lease, gone into possession, then drawn upon Section 39 and asked for his money back, and there has either been an agreement before 20th May, 1969, or a judgment of the court that the money is paid back, nothing in the new Clause will protect the poor "mug" who has transferred his lease for money which he has now to pay back. That cannot be right, and I would like the Government to reconsider these circumstances.

We are saying, in effect, that Section 39 of the Leasehold Reform Act is wrong, that it is a bad piece of legislation, that it should never have come on the Statute Book, and that people in these circumstances should have been freely able to pay over their money. We are saying that Parliament has made a mess of it, it has caused people to prejudice their position, someone has parted with money, but we shall not let him get it back.

The Government should reconsider this matter. If they feel that it is impossible to make the man who has got the judgment regurgitate the money, let us give compensation. After all, the mistake is ours. It is the State's mistake. We have placed these people in this position. We have made people sell their leases and have to give the money back again. In those circumstances, let us compensate them for the injustice that we have done.

Mr. Speaker, I beg your forgiveness if I have taken longer on this Clause—

Hon. Members

Hear hear.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

No, not at all. They do not understand it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) needs no encouragement.

Mr. Rossi

At this late stage, after a full discussion in Committee, when all our attempts at this kind of Amendment were resisted, we are suddenly presented with a form of words which is very difficult to follow and which we have had only two or three days to study. It is important that we probe and analyse and ask for a detailed explanation as to what exactly the wording is. That is what I have sought to do.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I might be forgiven for reminding the House that we are debating three out of some eight new Clauses to be followed by debates on 37 Amendments plus Government Amendments. Reasonably brief speeches will help.

Mr. MacColl

The hon. Gentleman asks what was the magic about 21 years and why we have fixed our attention on that. One answer is that in the new Clause 19, which is put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is reference to a term of years exceeding 21 years and at a rent the amount of which is stated to be not subject to review during the first 21 years of the said term. That is one of the reasons why we felt that this was the right approach to the problem.

I recognise the difficulty that hon. Members have had, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), in analysing this new Clause at fairly short notice. We were in the dilemma that we could either have persuaded some of our noble Friends in another place to put it down and have it considered there, giving longer time to consider it, or we could take the opportunity of putting it down now. It seemed to us that the best thing to do was to put it down for debate and for discussion of some of the implications that have been raised and then, if it is necessary to improve it in another place, that can be done.

I would like to make one or two points about Section 39. For the sake of the record and not wanting to be in any way pedantic, Section 39 is now Section 2(1,a) of the Rent Act, 1968, although most of us know it and have been discussing it as Section 39. I do not at all accept the argument that it was a mistake to put that Clause into the Leasehold Reform Act, when there was growing abuse and people on television were glorying in the fact that they were making rings round the Rent Act by the use of long leases with frequent breaks for rent increases. Therefore, it was essential that the Government should put something down.

It is quite true that it has been shown that this was causing hardship to some people. We have now, in three respects taken steps to invite the House to put those hardships right. I want to make clear, therefore, that the reason why we are doing this is because we want to protect these people. This is the real argument against the Amendment. It is not because we believe that Section 39 is now unnecessary, for we do not. We think it is important still to prevent abuse, but we want to take out of it perfectly bona fide long leases where there is adequate protection.

Mr. Maddan

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether when he has taken out the abuse this is for past sins, what is the position pre-27th November, what is the position between then and now, and what is to be the position for the future? Frankly, I cannot understand it.

Mr. MacColl

I am very fond of my own voice, but I do not think I would like to act like a gramophone record and to go again through the speech I made at the beginning. I believe I deployed clearly the scope of the Clause and hon. Members will be able carefully to study it, as I am sure they always study my speeches, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and obtain some idea of what it is about.

I should like to make a technical point. The hon. Member for Hornsey talked about termination by notice. He asked about somebody who defaulted on rent. Surely that is forfeiture—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Housing Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. MacColl

—rather than termination.

Mr. Rossi

It is a question of terminology, but we are concerned with the meaning of the words we are using. Is a notice served under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act, as a result of which a tenancy becomes terminable, caught by this wording, yea or nay? I think that it is and that the Government may have to amend the provision.

Mr. MacColl

My advice is that it is not, but under that Section all that happens is that a preliminary notice to terminate the lease is necessary before forfeiture for a breach of covenant can be enforced. The hon. Gentleman, however, shows a knowledge of the law of property with which, not since my humble and inauspicious third in that subject many years ago, could I possibly hope to compete. We will study the debate to see whether we have missed some points.

I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that in its present form the Amendment is wrong, because it refers to premiums lawfully paid whereas under the form of the Clause they would not be lawfully paid because they would be paid after the date, but that is purely a drafting matter.

Mr. Graham Page

We want to know whether in future it is to be illegal to grant a lease for 21 years on a premium. Will it be impossible to recover that premium on sale if a lease is granted in future? The Amendment is aimed at that and that alone.

Mr. MacColl

The two-thirds rule would still apply, but apart from that the intention is that the rules about premium would apply if it were not more than 21 years. The object is to leave a reasonable protection for tenants by avoiding having a break in the rent and having a lease going on for 21 years. Provided that there are those two protections, there will be no objection to charging a premium. I readily agree that this is a difficult problem but this is not something which has been sprung on the House. Hon. Members have complained that we should have done something more quickly, but we have taken account of what has been said in debates. We have heard the views of the Law Society and the matter has been discussed with the Law Commission. The Clause seems a reasonable compromise and I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Costain

If it is perfectly legal now to charge a premium, what about the people who bought the premium? Is it legal for them to sell again after this magic date and to take a premium in future?

Mr. MacColl

If it is outside this part of the Rent Act, that applies to every assignment, to the first grant of the lease and every assignment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause: In line 8, leave out, 'but the tenancy was granted before 27th November 1967'.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Clause added to the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 126.

Division No. 232.] AYES [10.5 p.m.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Pym, Francis
Astor, John Gurden, Harold Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Hall, John (Wycombe) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Body, Richard Harris, Reader (Heston) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hawkins, Paul Russell, Sir Ronald
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Holland, Philip Scott-Hopkins, James
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hornby, Richard Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Carlisle, Mark Hunt, John Silvester, Frederick
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Clegg, Walter Kershaw, Anthony Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Costain, A. P. Kirk, Peter Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dance, James Kitson, Timothy Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Dean, Paul Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Walters, Dennis
Dodds-Parker, Douglas McNair-Wilson, Michael Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Drayson, G. B. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Wiggin, A. W.
Errington, Sir Eric Maddan, Martin Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Eyre, Reginald Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Worsley, Marcus
Fortescue, Tim Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Wright, Esmond
Glover, Sir Douglas Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Goodhew, Victor Murton, Oscar TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, Anthony Nott, John Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Grieve, Percy Page, Graham (Crosby) Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Anderson, Donald Hannan, William Mendelson, John
Archer, Peter Harper, Joseph Millan, Bruce
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hattersley, Roy Molloy, William
Bidwell, Sydney Hooley, Frank Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Bishop, E. S. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Blackburn, F. Howie, W. Morris, Charles R (Openshaw)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hoy, James Moyle, Roland
Booth, Albert Huckfield, Leslie Murray, Albert
Boston, Terence Hunter, Adam Newens, Stan
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Hynd, John Norwood, Christopher
Boyden, James Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Oakes, Gordon
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Janner, Sir Barnett Oswald, Thomas
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'hury) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Buchan, Norman Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Palmer, Arthur
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Kelley, Richard Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Carmichael, Neil Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Pardoe, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Crawshaw, Richard Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Pavitt, Laurence
Davies, Edynfed Hudson (Conway) Lawson, George Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Leadbitter, Ted Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Delargy, Hugh Lestor, Miss Joan Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dempsey, James Lubbock, Eric Rowlands, E.
Dobson, Ray Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Ryan, John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) McBride, Neil Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Eadie, Alex MacColl, James Silverman, Julius
Edelman, Maurice Macdonald, A. H. Skeffington, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackintosh, John P. Tinn, James
Ellis, John Maclennan, Robert Tuck, Raphael
Wallace, George
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Watkins, David (Consett)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McNamara, J. Kevin Wellbeloved, James
Fowler, Gerry MacPherson, Malcolm Wells, William (Walsaff, N.)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg) Whitlock, William
Freeson, Reginald Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Gardner, Tony Manuel, Archie Winnick, David
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Marks, Kenneth
Gregory, Arnold Marquand, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Mr. Ernest G. Perry and
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mayhew, Christopher Mr. John McCann.
Forward to