Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 17, at end, insert:
"Provided always that in the case of a dwelling-house the first letting of which occurred between the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and forty-five in consequence of the landlord serving in any of His Majesty's forces or otherwise being required to reside elsewhere than in the dwelling-house by reason of circumstances arising out of the war, the rent so determined as aforesaid shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house whether the same shall be greater or less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section."
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."It has been made clear to this House on several occasions that this Bill is designed to achieve the limited objective of defending tenants against gross abuses by landlords. It is certainly not the vehicle for a general review of the Rent Restrictions Acts. In our view it is not possible to deal in isolation with a few cases where hardship may arise to a landlord without such a general review. Indeed, the proposed Amendment makes clear this weakness, for it would be almost impossible of interpretation within any narrow limits. Who could be certain, for example, whether or not the exigencies of war had necessitated removal in a certain case? I think also that it is clear that the hardship caused to individual landlords who had to leave their houses either to serve in the Forces or to go to other parts of the country during the war years has been much exaggerated. In fact, in the great majority of cases these landlords have now returned to the occupation of their houses. It would be wrong to attempt to take action on what is a comparatively small issue rather than to wait for a general review of the Rent Restrictions Acts which must take place at a more convenient date.
Would it not be better not to refer to these people as landlords having to leave their houses but as owners who were forced by the war to leave their houses? I think that would be better than saying that they are landlords.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary has just told us. All that he has said is that for administrative reasons it is not convenient to the Government to make a particular exclusion as indicated in the Amendment. He said the cases were few and, although there might be some injustice, the hardship was limited. The hon. Gentleman has cloaked himself under the excuse that this is not an easy thing to do. Where cases of justice and injustice are concerned, I think I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we do not hesitate, even though it might mean some administrative inconvenience, to further the just cause.I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the original intention of the Minister of Health when he presented this Bill had been carried out and if the right hon. Gentleman had not been led astray by a Communist Amendment which he accepted, the present Amendment which we support would not have been necessary. It is only as a result of that Communist Amendment that this is necessary, because these cases of hardship will arise. The House should give serious attention to the type of person to whom we are referring. We refer primarily to ex-Service men who had to give up their houses when called up or when they volunteered, and particularly, to members of the Armed Forces who lived in the towns. We should not forget that it was the policy of the Government of the day to try to get people out of the big towns if they were not essential to maintaining the life of those towns. What happened was that the men were called up or volunteered, and their wives and children were encouraged to evacuate from the centres of great cities like London. We naturally expected—and I am sure the Minister will agree—that the demand for houses in the centres of these great cities, which were all the time either under the threat of bombing or were actually being bombed, would be very small indeed. The majority of those affected were members of the Armed Forces, but there were others as well. There were key people who were asked by the Government to take up essential war work in other parts of the country, or who were sent abroad for that purpose. In addition, there were a large number of civil servants who were evacuated from London to places like Colwyn Bay at the request of the Government, and who had to make arrangements to dispose of their property because they had to work elsewhere. I feel that this is a reasonable case, because the rents which these people were able to obtain during this time were rents which today are very much below what could be termed reasonable rents. What the Minister has done by accepting the Communist Amendment and making his Bill effective as from 1st September, 1939, is to impose upon the type of person to whom I have referred the obligation of receiving a rent which was obtained in a period, not of scarcity of houses, but of superfluity of houses, and that is really beyond argument. The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that this case should be dealt with when a general revision of the Rent Restrictions Acts is considered and is before Parliament. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should have been done, but his Government have been in power for almost four years already and it has not been done. Have we any reason to think that, if they are returned to power, they have any intention of dealing with this matter? We should be most interested to hear what they have to say—but it is probably an entirely theoretical question.
Is this the only theorising in the Conservative programme that we are to be vouchsafed?
A very interesting interruption, but an irrelevant one.I hope that, in view of the points which I have put to him, which are reasonable and just, the Minister will think again. I hope that hon. Members on all sides realise that it is the job of this House to do justice, not to carry out things merely for reasons of administrative convenience.
I feel that another place has sent forward an Amendment to this Bill which deserves the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister was quite right when he said that the prime reason for the introduction of this Bill, in which I have given him all support, was the extortionate rentals due to the housing scarcity. Whereas all Members of this House are in favour of removing that abuse, I fail to see why we should not be interested in other abuses as well. To my own knowledge—and I should be pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman any further information at any time he may wish to have it—there was quite a large number of lettings in London during the blitz, not, as a supporter of this Amendment has said, at 50 per cent., but very often at only one-third of the value of a reasonable rent. The owners had to leave London and choose between letting their houses or closing them. In the latter case they ran the risk if the houses were damaged, of having anything inside them of value pillaged. There were large numbers of lettings at a comparatively nominal rent which had no relationship whatever to a low reasonable rent. I have always stood up for what I call a low reasonable rent.I think that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, and certainly his representatives in another place have admitted, that there is hardship under this particular provision. Is it quite fair when the Government have the chance to rectify an abuse, that they should say, "If we cannot rectify all abuses, we will not rectify this particular abuse"? I do not think that is a good argument. The members of the tribunal will be well chosen and men with considerable knowledge of letting values, and I fail to see why they cannot deal with a very reasonable Amendment such as this one.
I think that hon. Members will agree that there is much to be said for making provision for those who were compelled to leave their homes, whether through war service or otherwise, during the war. If that were the only point at issue in this Amendment, I think that the Minister would have been pleased to accept it; but it is, unfortunately, not the only point. I think that so long as the Rent Acts are not dealt with as a whole, which, as hon. Members will know, many of us have been trying to bring about for a considerable time, it would be invidious to make a distinction in this particular respect, because by avoiding a hardship in one direction we should probably create hardships in other directions.I would like, first, to deal with some of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare). It is drawing a red herring across the track to suggest that because the original Amendment to the Bill was proposed by a Communist—and my hon. Friends will know that my sympathies do not lie in that particular direction—that has created a position which justifies the introduction of this particular Amendment in another place. If I may say so with respect, that argument does not hold water, because the original Amendment was introduced for the reduction of rents. It did not introduce any question of increasing rent, and did not deal with the position of a man who had left his premises in consequence of the war. All it did was to extend the provisions of this Bill to enable a person who had let a house in the period from 1939 up to now to have the rent revised and reduced, not increased. This unfortunate bee in the bonnet which is put forward as an argument by those who support the Amendment which we are now considering ought to be forgotten at once, because it has nothing to do with the case. 10.15 p.m. Secondly, the Rent Restrictions Acts do not include houses let at rentals below two-thirds of the rateable value of the house. I have, I hope, made myself clear on that point on many occasions, because I think that unfortunately the provisions of this Bill can be avoided by certain subterfuges which can be used in that direction. But for the purpose of this Amendment it must be made clear that if the rent was so low that it was below two-thirds of the rateable value of the house, this Amendment is not necessary, because the rent can be increased in any case.
Where the house has been let in a hurry at a nominal rent below two-thirds of the rateable value, to what can it be increased?
To anything at all. Not only can it be increased to a reasonable rent, but it can be increased to any rent—to £1,000 a week if they can get it.Thirdly, there is a method open at present to a Service man who had to leave his premises, or to a person who had to leave in consequence of the war, to apply to the courts for possession of his house on the grounds of greater hardship. That means that if a person is in difficulties because the house he has let is producing a smaller rental than the rental he has to pay for the use of another house, the court is entitled to take that into consideration, and in fact does take it into consideration, when considering the question of granting possession. The question is not, therefore, quite so simple as it has been presented by those who support the Amendment. Also, we must consider, not only persons compelled to leave in consequence of directions, but a large number of people who had to leave their homes because of advice given by one of the Ministries. During the war certain Ministries asked people in, for example, seaside resorts to leave their homes. They were not compelled to leave; but they, too, had to let their places at lower rentals and these rentals would not be increasable under this Amendment. May not that person also have been in difficulties and have had to let his house elsewhere in order to occupy the house he is in now? If his rent is increased he will have to pay the increased rent, so what will his position be then? I submit that these are reasonable answers to the points raised. A question has been asked tonight as to how we are going to remove all the difficulties. I should like to answer that by saying that these difficulties have been in existence for many years, and all these anomalies existed prior to the advent of this Government. Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, do what they are asking us to do? I do not say that two wrongs make a right, but they cannot argue at this stage that it is this Government's fault, because it is as much their fault as the fault of this Government. Until all these Acts are completely revised, people living next door to each other in similar houses will be paying different rentals. This proposal would increase the anomalies already existing, because if rentals are allowed to be increased in cases of the kind mentioned in the Amendment, a person in one house will be paying a lower rental than the man next door. The result will be that greater confusion will exist than any there has been in the past. On those grounds hon. Members opposite ought to withdraw their Amendment——
On a point of Order. The hon. Member keeps referring to Members on this side of the House having moved an Amendment. This is an Amendment by another place, and the question is whether we disagree with it or not.
I am sorry if I have used the wrong term. What I intended to say—and I think I did say it—was that the Opposition should reconsider the whole matter. Those of us who normally support the Government will resent any attempt to use this kind of Amendment as a whip with which to beat the Government. It is probable that behind a proposal of this kind is the idea that the Opposition can use it to throw dust in the eyes of the people in the country, but I hope that when they speak or write about this matter they will also give the answers to this proposal, and point out that thousands upon thousands of ex-Service men will be adversely affected if we agree with the Lords on this Amendment. I hope they will also point out that unless and until all these Acts are revised, anomalies will arise, and hon. Members opposite are just as responsible as this Government for not revising the whole of the Acts.
I will not follow the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) at any length, except to congratulate him on having made me absolutely certain that now is the time for the revision of the Acts and that it ought to have been done before. Nor will I follow him in his defence of the Communist Party: nor would I have done so had he defended the Liberal Party's past: but I should like to say that I believe that the other place were absolutely right in inserting this Amendment. Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said in an effort to deprecate the Amendment, from my own personal experience I know that there are a considerable number of people in the West Country who have been in the Services and who would be helped by it. If the Minister were in the frame of mind which he told us earlier on he was in, namely, a sweet, compromising frame of mind, and if he freely followed the advice he gave us then, he would undoubtedly accept the Amendment, because it would be doing good to a whole lot of people.It is not only the ex-Service man whom it would affect very considerably. They are the people who, during those years, had to go into the actual fighting Services. In my part of the country there are both men and women whom this part of the Bill will affect. Those people had to go from the West Country and other places to work in some of the big industrial centres. That applies to a very large number of people. It would not be difficult for me to get individual evidence of that fact. I am not sure that it could not be found in letters of mine in the Ministry of Health now. The number goes far beyond the Service people. It has been argued that people can go to the courts. Surely our object in the House of Commons in supporting the Amendment is to avoid putting more duties on the courts than we can possibly help.
Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to point out that what he is doing is, on the contrary, to increase the duties and responsibilities of the tribunals, which are in a sense courts of justice.
That may be or it may not be. I know that the hon. Gentleman has vast knowledge of these matters. He always tells us how much he knows, but I have noticed that people who protest how much they know, very often do not know very much at all. I appeal to the Minister to take my human point of view rather than the ultra-legal point of view expressed from below the Gangway. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the Amendment, after the strong case put in its favour and weak case put against it. If the Minister refuses to do so, I and every other hon. Member on this side will be in a strong position. We can say "Here is a great injustice to many people in our constituencies." The Minister has missed his chance, when it was handed to him by another place. He misses it so easily—and the only thing he does this time is to laugh, as I have often seen him laugh before when people were suffering. Nothing seems to move the present Front Bench, even when we have an Amendment which would do something to relieve suffering and when the Government themselves are causing more suffering in this country than any Government ever did.
I do not think that I shall find it difficult to avoid the criticism of my hon. Friend about pretending to know a very great deal about the Rent Acts. I have been studying them carefully for 20 years, and the more I study them, the more I realise that anyone who pretends to know anything about them is either a knave or a fool. There seem to me to be two facts—at any rate I think so until I am corrected—which are plain on this Amendment. The first is that the argument put forward by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), which he orginated, cannot help us very much. The argument was that a person who had been forced to leave his house by reason of war service was, under the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, able to obtain possession if he could establish a case of greater hardship. Of course, that is true, and I think we all know it is true, but we are not, of course, dealing now with attempts to get possession by people who had to leave their houses by reason of their war service. That is the position under the provisions of the existing Acts. What we are attempting to deal with under this Amendment is the question of a person who had to leave his house because of war service, or other circumstances arising out of the war, and had to let his house at an unecomonic rent and who desires for one reason or another, perhaps out of good nature, perhaps for convenience, to leave the tenant in possession. The question is what rent should he be allowed to charge.That brings me to the second point, which seems to me to be, at any rate at the moment, fairly clear. That is, that the principal argument advanced by the Government for rejecting this Amendment does not really help very much here, because the Parliamentary Secretary led us to believe that if we were to agree to this Amendment we should be driven to embark upon the wholesale revision of the Rent Restrictions Acts, an object which, however desirable, is obviously outside the purview of this particular Measure. If that is so, I should concede at once that he would have established a very strong case against this Amendment in this Bill; but I fail to understand why it is so. Certainly nothing the Parliamentary Secretary has said and nothing that the hon. Member for West Leicester has said has convinced me that it is so. After all, we are considering how to establish a standard rent in relation to a new letting. In relation to an old letting, it is established under the provisions of the existing law, complicated as they may be. But new lettings under the new Bill are to be established by the tribunal if an application is made. This Bill provides that if the tribunal lays down what rent is reasonable, if that rent is less than the rent which is being charged, so much the worse for the landlord, and the rent is reduced by that amount in respect of new lettings—that is, lettings since 1939. So far the matter is fairly clear. But it then goes on to provide that if the tribunal decides that the reasonable rent—that is, what it would be right to charge taking all the circumstances into account—is more than the rent which is in fact being charged, then it is so much the better for the tenant, because the Measure is a one-way street and provides only that something which is less than what is being charged will be considered reasonable for purposes of being chargeable. That is a general principle I have never approved of in this Bill. I will make that concession to the right hon. Gentleman at once. I have always thought what was reasonable was what was reasonable, and that what is sauce for the landlord goose is equally sauce for the tenant gander. In this Amendment we are concerned with a somewhat more meritorious class—namely, those owners of houses who were driven out of them by the circumstances of the war and who had the value of the rent depreciated. Why should they not be allowed to charge what is reasonable, if the tribunal which the Minister himself sets up decides that it is reasonable? What is wrong, what is unjust, about that? What is there in this Amendment, limited as it is to new lettings and to this particular class within new lettings, which, if it is agreed to, forces us to embark upon a general revision of the Rent Restrictions Acts? It may be that I have overlooked some obvious point, as it is easy to do when dealing with this extraordinarily complicated matter, but that is how it appears to me at present, and unless the Minister has some clearer and better explanation than his Parliamentary Secretary has so far given to the House, I feel that that is the way it will appear to me when the matter is put to the vote. I ask the Minister, if I have misunderstood the situation, to put me right before we have a Division.
The only argument brought out by the Government for disagreeing with the Lords in this Amendment is that it would be unjust to do this until the general revision of the Rent Acts takes place. I can imagine an advocate with a very criminal client before a court of justice, the client having been found guilty and the judge being about to pass sentence, rising and saying "Before you pass sentence, your honour, I ask you to remember that all this is going to be settled before long; the Day of Judgment will come, and the whole of our lives will be reviewed. How unjust it is that this man should be singled out for punishment before the general reconsideration of the whole world population takes place." That is the argument of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), that until this general review of 8 million cases takes place, nothing should be done in the case of this small Clause here, which affects people for whose position everyone has the greatest sympathy in words. The fact is that the House of Commons tonight has a chance of doing injustice or justice, and it is about to select, on the recommendation of Ministers, injustice. Why? Because it thinks it would be more convenient that injustice should be done. That is an unworthy recommendation to make, an unworthy action for the House to take. We shall certainly divide the House against it.
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has said that anyone who claims to know much about the Rent Acts is either a knave or a fool. As I was listening to him I was wondering how he would describe a person who employed a lawyer who admitted that.
A very wise man.
I do not claim to be an authority on the Rent Acts. One does not need to be an authority to understand the simple point before us tonight. It was only a few minutes ago that I was being reproached by hon. Members of the legal profession on the other side of the House for being responsible for obscurely worded Clauses in Acts. I recommend the present proposition, which has come from another place, as a masterpiece of obscurity, because one would not be able to find out where the frontiers came under it. Listen to the words—and I beg hon. Members to realise that it is not their speeches which we are writing into the law but, if it is accepted, this suggested Amendment. The words of it are:
I suggest that if these words are written into the Bill, it will be practically impossible to deny the right of anyone who let a house for the first time since 1939 to go to the tribunals. It would be practically impossible to distinguish between a person who let a house through circumstances other than those arising out of the war. The war itself in this country was so vastly disturbing, so dislocating, and it affected people in so many diverse ways that it would be almost impossible for any tribunal to determine why a person vacated his house, whether he did so as a consequence of the war. The proposed Amendment does not even say "as a direct consequence." It says, as a consequence of the war. It would be quite easy to establish that the vacation of a house and the letting of it to someone else, was a consequence of the war."Provided always that in the case of a dwelling-house the first letting of which occurred between the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and forty-five in consequence of the landlord serving in any of His Majesty's forces or otherwise being required to reside elsewhere than in the dwelling house by reason of circumstances arising out of the war.…"
Surely the words "being required" explain what is intended.
The words are:
"Being required" by whom?"being required to reside elsewhere."
By the State authority.
It does not say "being required" by any authority. It does not say "being required" by an employer, by the State or by anybody at all. It simply says "being required".
But the right hon. Gentleman surely would not deny that somebody called up and ordered to Malaya or Hong Kong was required to leave his house?
That is not the point at issue. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said was that we should do justice. Of course we should, and we should also know to whom justice is to be done. But the Amendment which has come from another place leaves out entirely to whom justice is to be done. We cannot put in a statute words which are impossible of being intelligently construed, and I am astonished that I should
Division No. 147.]
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.||Crossman, R. H. S.|
|Albu, A. H.||Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Daggar, G.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.||Bramall, E. A.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Brook, D. (Halifax)||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Deer, G.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Delargy, H. J.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Diamond, J.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Burke, W. A.||Dodds, N. N.|
|Baird, J.||Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Donovan, T.|
|Balfour, A.||Carmichael, James||Driberg, T. E. N.|
|Barton, C.||Chamberlain, R. A.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Champion, A. J.||Dumpleton, C. W.|
|Berry, H.||Chetwynd, G. R.||Evans, John (Ogmore)|
|Beswick, F.||Cobb, F. A.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Cocks, F. S.||Ewart, R.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Collindridge, F.||Fairhurst, F.|
|Binns, J.||Collins, V. J.||Farthing, W. J.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)||Fernyhough, E.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Corlett, Dr. J.||Field, Capt W. J.|
|Boardman, H.||Cove, W. G.||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)|
be asked to do so at this stage. Hon. Members opposite say that injustice is being done to the owner of the house and an ex-Service man. They do not seem to realise that the tenant may perhaps be an ex-Service man. They always assume that the landlord is an ex-Service man, and he is the poor person, they say, who ought to have the chance of raising the rent. What about the person against whom the rent is being raised? He might be an ex-Service man, too.
I admit the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford that if a reasonable rent has been determined it should be possible for the reasonable rent to be applied. But that goes against the whole principle of the Bill. It is not intended to be a rent-raising Measure; it is a rent-restricting Measure. It is intended to protect tenants from having exacted from them exorbitant rents arising out of the present troubled conditions. If I accepted this Amendment it would be against the whole intent of the Bill. There is no reason why I should do so at this stage. As a matter of fact, it was rejected on the Committee stage in this House and I do not see why I should be asked to surrender to another place a principle which I have already denied to the Commons. I, therefore, suggest that a case has not been made out for the Amendment and I certainly could not recommend the House of Commons to insert in an Act of Parliament an Amendment which is so obscure and which leaves so many ends untied.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 86.
|Forman, J. C.||McAdam, W.||Scollan, T.|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||McAllister, G.||Segal, Dr. S.|
|Freeman, J. (Watford)||McGhee, H. G.||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Mack, J. D.||Sharp, Granville|
|Gibson, C. W.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Shurmer, P.|
|Gitzean, A.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)||Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.|
|Granville, J. E. (Consett)||McKinlay, A. S.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Goodrich, H. E.||Maclean, N. (Govan)||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Grey, C. F.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)|
|Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Snow, J. W.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Guy, W. H.||Mann, Mrs. J.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Symonds, A. L.|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Mitchison, G. R.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Harrison, J.||Monslow, W.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville.||Moody, A. S.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)||Morley, R.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Mort, D. L.||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Moyle, A.||Timmons, J.|
|Holman, P.||Murray, J. D.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Tolley, L.|
|Horabin, T. L.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Hoy, J.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Walkden, E.|
|Hubbard, T.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)||Pargiter, G. A.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Parker, J.||Watson, W. M.|
|Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)||Parkin, B. T.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Weitzman, D.|
|Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)||Pearson, A.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Janner, B.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||West, D. G.|
|Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)||Price, M. Philips||White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)||Pryde, D. J.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Pursey, Comdr. H.||Wigg, George|
|Keenan, W.||Ranger, J.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|King, E. M.||Rankin, J.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Kinley, J.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Lang, G.||Robens, A.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Lee, F. (Hulme)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Willis, E.|
|Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Leonard, W.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Woods, G. S.|
|Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Rogers, G. H. R.||Yates, V. F.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Logan, D. G.||Royle, C.|
|Lyne, A. W.||Sargood, R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Harden, J. R. E.||Neven-Spence, Sir B.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Nicholson, G.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Nield, B. (Chester)|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.||Odey, G. W.|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hogg, Hon Q.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Bowen, N.||Hollis, M. C.||Raikes, H. V.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hope, Lord J.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.||Howard, Hon. A.||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Byers, Frank||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)||Renton, D.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Keeling, E. H.||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesail)|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Linstead, H. N.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Crowder, Capt, John E.||Low, A. R. W.||Spence, H. R.|
|De la Bére, R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Strauss, Henry (English Universities)|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||McCallum, Maj. D.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Touche, G. C.|
|Drayson, G. B.||McFarlane, C. S.||Turton, R. H.|
|Drewe, C.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter||Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Marsden, Capt. A.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Gammans, L. D.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Mellor, Sir J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Grimston, R. V.||Molson, A. H. E.||Brigadier Mackeson and|
|Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Colonel Wheatley.|
Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 28, leave out "and the next following."
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."I think it will be convenient to the House if we take together this and a whole series of drafting Amendments which are consequential.
I would make no objection to that. The Minister will warn us when we come to an Amendment of substance, and I am sure we can rely on him to do so.
Question put, and agreed to.