(1) The Act of 1920 shall not apply to a dwelling-house which consists, and consists only, of premises falling within either of the following paragraphs, that is to say— (a) separate and self-contained premises produced by conversion, after the commencement of this Act, of other premises, with or without the addition of premises erected after the commencement of this Act; (b) premises erected after the commencement of this Act. (2) For the purposes of this section premises shall be treated as converted or erected after the commencement of this Act if the conversion or erection was completed thereafter, notwithstanding that it may have been begun before the commencement of this Act. (3) Section sixteen of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951, shall have effect with the addition, after paragraph (b) of subsection (2) thereof, of the following paragraph: —
"(bb) that those premises are excluded from the operation of the Rent Act of 1920 by section (Exclusion from Rent Acts of dwelling-houses converted or erected after commencement of Act) of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954."—[Commander Galbraith.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."The purpose of this Clause is to exclude from the Rent Acts new dwelling-houses, or houses which have been converted after the commencement of the Act. It is designed to encourage the owners of new houses or converted houses who do not require them for their own occupation to let them unfurnished. The present position is that if an owner of a new house or a converted house decides to let it, the rent for the first letting becomes the standard rent for the purposes of the Rent Acts, which is subject to review by a rent tribunal under Section 1 of the 1949 Act. I put it to hon. Members that anyone who contemplates letting a house may be deterred by the uncertainty about the rent which he will receive and may decide that if he cannot occupy the premises himself he had better sell them. This Clause should make for an increase in the number of houses to let, and that is something which is very desirable indeed. As a result of there being so few houses to let, people who have to move about the country find great difficulty in obtaining a house to rent. The majority of houses to let are local authority houses, and, rightly or wrongly, many local authorities insist on prospective tenants having a residential qualification. People who have to move about from place to place cannot have such a qualification. They are, therefore, forced either to go into furnished accommodation, which means that they have the additional expense of having to store their furniture, or else they have to buy a house, which may be a very expensive matter. From the economic point of view it is desirable to encourage these people to move about the country and such people should have a better opportunity to acquire a house There was a provision similar to this in the 1920 Act where it was laid down that no house provided after 2nd April, 1919, came under the Rent Acts. They did not come under the Rent Acts until the emergency of 1939. It comes to this, that within two years after the end of the First World War this action was taken without serious hardship resulting. Nine years have now elapsed since the end of the Second World War, and with the enormous building programme which is going on, we think that we should allow for these people I have mentioned finding accommodation to rent.
I do not find the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wholly satisfactory. At first sight, it would seem that the Government have again substantially altered their policy from that which they adopted doing the Committee stage when we discussed Clause 26.I can understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want unduly to detain the House, but I think it would have been desirable for the House to know that the Government have moved away from the position they adopted when Clause 26 was discussed in Committee. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that he adopted a strong position about that Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) both advanced strong arguments, but the Minister did not feel inclined to give way on the subject and we eventually divided the Committee. 11.30 p.m. Today the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with no apology—perhaps none was necessary—and very little explanation altered his positon. Quite plainly, this means an end to rent control for any type of new house. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but I do not think so, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not seek to allay any fears upon that subject. Subsection (2) seems to be most ambiguous. It says:
I admit that I might be wrong on this point. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really seeking just to cover legitimate developments and conversions that were taking place and that were limited by the date upon which the Bill becomes operative? If that is so, I am not sure whether we can find a better form of words to meet the intention; but it will be plain that this provision could be capable of very wide extension. Is there no date to it? Does it not matter when it was begun and when it was completed? What is a conversion or erection? Is it a substantial subdivision, a substantial provision of additional accommodation? What kind of operation is in the mind of the Government when they make this exemption for which I believe that a case may be made?"For the purposes of this section premises shall be treated as converted or erected after the commencement of this Act if the conversion or erection was completed thereafter, notwithstanding that it may have been begun before the commencement of this Act."
It applies to any conversion that takes place—where a house is divided into two or it may be where two houses are made into one. Any conversion of that nature would come under this provision. Of course, it applies when the house has been completed after the date of the Bill coming into operation—when the job has been finished after that date.
I believe that this subsection is meant to apply to a legitimate procedure, a normal business procedure, but suppose that a landlord or an owner could show that many years ago he had started some kind of alteration. Suppose that he pleaded that it was his intention to knock two rooms into one, would there be any test of date?
I do not see how that would apply. If an alteration was started many years ago something must have happened to the house in the meantime. It must be a house now. It is not an alteration which is taking place and which will finish just after the Bill becomes an Act. I do not see how the point applies. 1 cannot envisage a case like the one the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
I hope that I am wrong. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that something must have happened to the house in the interval. That is precisely the point. I am trying to argue that it must have been a firm intention to make this kind of alteration at the date when it will be alleged the operations were commenced and that they were spread over many years. It would be difficult, but I could offer a form of words. I do not pretend that it would apply to any very wide area of case, but I have a suspicion that this ambiguous sub-section could be misused.I presume that those mainly affected under paragraph 3 are Civil Defence people. I do not know what is the anxiety of the Government to lay hold of that type of house under this new Clause. If it is a local government house, local government is in a position to treat it as it wishes. Has the paragraph any other purpose? If it is not a local government house which he has in mind, of what other type of house is he thinking? At this stage it seems unlikely that we can accept the Clause, and I doubt whether, even if they were substantial buildings, the Secretary of State has said enough to commend the Clause to the House. It seems to me that this is another attack on the excellent legislation which was available. It looks, also, as if, through modification of the Labour Government's Act, buildings which attracted subsidy will be set free to make any profit; though 1 may be wrong. That Act was a good one. Under it, public money was properly applied, and from it tenants benefited. It now looks as though public money is being thrown away. If the Minister is anxious to make available more houses to let, then there must be other ways of tackling the matter. A simple way, which we have repeatedly urged, is to say that it is illegal to seek to withhold from a fair letting any such house. Local authorities could deal with that situation. One of my hon. Friends once offered an excellent Bill to the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, despite his reasonable attitude, has not been able to remove our fears that consideration here is not for the tenant, but for the owner and factor.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) that the Clause is rather loosely worded. It would be as well if we had an assurance from the Government about their intentions. The purpose of the 1949 Act was to allow owners to convert and modernise property with the aid of Government grants. In the case of a private owner, the Government could grant up to 50 per cent, of the cost.
Perhaps I ought to have made this clear earlier. Where the conversion is the result of an improvement grant under the 1949 Act, for the period for which the conditions apply, normally 20 years, the rent is still limited by the Act to that fixed by the local authority at the date when the application for the grant was approved.
If that is the case and we are clear that no greater rent can be charged, that the rent will still be within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts and that the term of 20 years would also apply to sale—the Act prohibited any sale under 20 years—I am satisfied on the point.
Would it not be possible for a person who had started a conversion under Section 3 of the 1949 Act to sell and pay back the original subsidy, do a little more work on the house and qualify for the new benefits which are granted to a landlord under the Clause?
I presume that if a landlord got rid of his obligation under the Act, as provided for in the Act, he might be eligible if he did some further conversion. I do not know how it would come about, but there might be such cases.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that there might be cases and that there might be some other conversions. There is no definition here to say whether the conversion has to be reconstruction as under the Act. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is opening up a wide field for the speculative letting of houses.Under Section 3 of the 1949 Act, by which the Labour Government hoped to encourage the conversion of older dwelling-houses to two or three houses each for letting at controlled rents, the permitted increase of rent was originally 6 per cent, of the landlord's expenditure. The present Government have now raised the figure to 8 per cent. Under those provisions, very few owners of large houses have made any conversions. The Government have said that greater use is now being made of Section 3 of the 1949 Act than ever before. We have also been told that that is purely and simply the result of the improvement grant being applicable to tied houses and because previously it had not paid to do the work. The fact that little was done was not because there was not a need or that there was not a reasonable profit to be made, but because it did not pay enough. The Government are now retreating before these people in order to make it possible for them to convert large houses. One of the places in which this will be done is Edinburgh, of all places. The Victorian and Edwardian type houses there will be converted into three or four separate flats each. Some of that work is already being done. The persons who rent them will have no security of tenure, and there will be no ceiling on the rent. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that this will in any way help meet the housing need in Scotland, he is deceiving himself, and I doubt very much whether the truth is in it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) should doubt whether the truth was in me. I hope that I have an equal aptitude for telling the truth with the hon. Gentleman himself. I am sure that he will allow me that measure of truthfulness within me. I should be delighted if, as a result of the Clause, conversions took place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that there are many people who would like to get one of these houses outwith the provisions of rent control. In any case, I do not believe that the only people who should be able to offer houses for letting should be the local authorities, and house owners should be able to have security in matters like this.The hon. Gentleman said it looked at first sight as though the Government had altered their policy. It is useless for me to deny that the Government have had second thoughts, but in view of the way in which they have been supplying the country with houses, through the local authorities and the building industry, it was reasonable to introduce this measure of decontrol. It means the end of rent control in regard to new houses for letting. Nine years have elapsed since the end of the war, and it is time we had this measure of freedom. The right hon. Gentleman said that consideration was not given to the tenants, but it is given to the tenants here. Unless we do something like this, tenants will not be able to have houses at all. We believe this will make more houses available for letting, and that it is proper to make the revision. For that reason we wish to put the Clause into the Bill.
On a point of order. I do not wish to be thought to be making any attack upon you, Mr. Speaker, but at the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon your attention was called to occasions when hon. Members were alleged to be speaking for the second time without asking leave of the House. The Joint Under-Secretary of State is entitled, as a Privy Councillor, to speak a second time, but he has been addressing the House for the third time without asking leave. I believe that he has been slightly in error in assuming that we were in Committee.
Let there be no misunderstanding about this. I would refer hon. Members to Standing Order No. 52. which says that
"When a bill has been committed to a standing committee or has been so committed in respect of some of its provisions, then, on consideration of the report of the bill or such of its provision as were so committed, the rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the bill. …"
I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I am in error. It seemed a bit unusual for the Minister in charge of the new Clause to do so when the Minister in charge of the Bill had gone for sustenance. It is a little unusual for the Joint Under-Secretary in charge of a new Clause to reply to each point that is made by each hon. Member.
I was only endeavouring to be courteous.
I am not accusing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of discourtesy. What I said was that I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was ignoring the fact that this was not the Report stage of the Bill and that we are the House and no longer in Committee. However, I do not want to waste time. I apologise if I have misconstrued the Standing Order and raised a false point.The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just confessed that the Government have had second thoughts about Clause 26. This Clause was Clause 25 on Second Reading and as we took it in Standing Committee. I chose to challenge the Government on the introduction of Clause 25 as it then was, now Clause 26, because it seemed to me to be an unnecessary modification of the provisions of the Act of 1949. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stoutly defended Clause 26 only a few weeks ago. He said he thought the Opposition would have welcomed the new Clause. We had been calling attention to the fact that when these conversions took place, under the Act of 1949, the rent of the house was deter- mined by a rent tribunal. We thought it would not be a bad idea for the rent tribunal to have regard to the total rent of the house and that there should be a process of apportionment, whether two houses were being made into one, or six made into three, or one house being made into three, four or five. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
That was his view of Clause 26. Since then somebody has got at the Government—the Lord Advocate suggested Mr. Murray McGregor."Why not leave it to the people who are able to judge these things properly, as provided in the Act, and leave them untrammelled by this unnecessary reference to the rent which was the rent for the house as a whole? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 9th February, 1954; c. 913].
I never mentioned Mr. Murray McGregor.
Who beside the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned him?
I was being accused and I say that I did not mention him.
Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say who did?
Mr. Murray McGregor, whoever he may be, has nothing to do with this Clause.
I entirely agree. Mr. Murray McGregor ought to have nothing at all to do with this. But I said that somebody had got at the Government and sitting there are the Joint Undersecretary, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Whip. One of them, in an audible voice, mentioned Mr. Murray McGregor and I thought it was the Lord Advocate.Nevertheless, somebody has got at the Government and has said, "Although you have improved the Act of 1949 in favour of the landlords, in Clause 26, we still have this instrument which was so highly praised by the Secretary of State, the rent tribunal." They have all been thrown overboard and the landlords have been set free. The party opposite fought the last General Election on "Set the people free," but they did not say that it was people like Murray McGregor. They did not say that it was the landlords who were to be set free. I submit to the House that if we cannot trust the landlords of existing houses, we have no right whatever to trust the landlords of houses to be built in the future, whether they are new houses or houses created as a result of the conversion of existing property. We cannot trust the landlords. Nobody can stand up in this House tonight and say that he trusts the landlords. The only reason for continuing the control of rents of houses is that the landlords are not to be trusted. But this House is not being asked to trust the landlords. It is obvious that a great many non-Scottish Members in the House at the moment regard this matter as one of some levity. Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) thinks so, but this matter is very serious to the tenants of Scotland, and we cannot lightly allow this new Clause to be written into the Bill, because every new house created as the result of conversion means the end of rent control. A few weeks ago the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the tribunals would decade that. Today, he seems to have changed his mind, and he now says that Murray McGregor and others will decide these things. We on this side of the House emphatically disagree.
I consider this to be a scandalous Clause, since it involves the complete abolition of rent control. It is rather strange that no mention was made of this policy in the Bill as drafted. It was not suggested during Second Reading nor during the Committee stage, and we only find ourselves confronted with it this evening when there is very little opportunity of debating its merits.Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), I am convinced that this Clause has been inserted at the behest of the factors and the Property Owners' Association of Scotland, because we have shown, particularly during the Committee stage, that private enterprise had lamentably failed to provide homes for the people for letting. We quoted figures to prove that since the end of the war private enterprise in Scotland has built less than 1 per cent, of the total number of houses for letting.
The hon. Member will realise that the whole object of this scheme is to encourage them to do better.
It is not an encouragement to them to do better to give them a free market without any control of the rents. The result will be that rents for houses will be fixed at a figure outside the capacity of the average worker to pay. That is the purpose behind the new Clause. The Tory Party, bearing in mind its policy in this matter, is bound at the behest of the factors and property owners to abolish rent control.What will that mean? It will inevitably mean the diversion of labour and materials from the building of municipal houses, from the houses most needed, to the building of houses to rent at £80, £100 or £150 a year. That is the intention behind the new Clause. It is scandalous that a new Clause like this should be sprung on us on Report, when we cannot, as we could in Committee, debate the merits of the whole matter. This is a carefully conceived and planned effort on the Government's part, for they were afraid to have a detailed examination of their policy, to see if the abolition of rent control was desirable or not. In conjunction with my hon. Friends I protest vigorously against this method employed.
I must clear up a mistake the hon. Member has made. He has twice spoken of the abolition of rent control. This is nothing of the kind. The new Clause abolishes rent control of houses built or converted in the future. I would assure the hon. Gentleman we have no intention that houses should be provided at such rents no one could possibly live in them. It is not reasonable to suppose anyone is going to build houses for a rent nobody can possibly pay. That seems a ridiculous suggestion. The hon. Gentleman also said the object of the Government was to divert resources from municipal houses. Far be it from him or anyone on those benches to make that charge against this Government, who have built far more houses than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have kept his mouth very much shut on that aspect of the matter.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite certain that houses will be built at rents attractive to the ordinary tenants why does he seek this back door method of amending the Bill?
I do not admit that this is a back door method. We are bringing up a new Clause in the House of Commons. How can that be a back door method?
The Joint Undersecretary of State has just said it is not the intention of the Government to divert building resources from the building of municipal houses. Surely he must realise that, whether that is the intention of the Government or not, that is bound to be the effect of their policy, and that it will do a great deal of harm to housing in the country. The springing of this proposal upon the House at the last moment is a very improper procedure.I should like to know why this provision was not in the Bill as drafted. Why was it not brought in at the Committee stage? Why was it left until Report? Surely it is perfectly clear that it is the intention to avoid adequate discussion and to try and ram it through without discussion, and without giving the country or the House an opportunity of considering it fully or properly. I hope that the House will reject the Clause.
We protest very vigorously against this class legislation, for that is what it is. The Joint Under-Secretary, the right hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), said that no one would build houses at rents which
Division No. 100.]
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Bullard, D. G.||Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.|
|Alport, C. M. M.||Burden, F. F. A||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Carr, Robert||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Channon, H.||Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Glover, D.|
|Baldwin, A. E||Cole, Norman||Godber, J. B|
|Banks, Col. C.||Conant, Mai. R J. E.||Gomme-Duncan, Col A|
|Barlow, Sir John||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Cough, C. F. H.|
|Baxter, A. B||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E)||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Grimond, J|
|Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)||Crouch, R. F.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Deedes, W. F.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Boothby, Sir R- J G.||Digby, S. Wingfield||Hay, John|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA||Heath, Edward|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Higgs, J. M. C.|
|Brooks, Henry (Hampstead)||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Eden, J. G. (Bournemouth, West)||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T||Finlay, Graeme||Holt, A. F.|
nobody could possibly pay. But there will be people who are able to afford them, and they will not be workingclass people. What the Government are doing is pursuing a policy which will ultimately result in very few workingclass houses being built at rents ordinary people can afford. They are encouraging the building of houses for sale. Under this Clause they are encouraging the building of houses to let at rents which will be too dear for workingclass people.
The local authorities are going once again, under this Bill, to undertake slum clearance, and that is the function the Government sees them performing in the future. What, then, is to become of the workingclass need for houses at rents which they can afford to pay? There are thousands of rented houses for sale in Scotland every year and the Government refuses to take action to stop that. Even this Bill is being used as a pretext by hundreds of factors in Scotland to try to inveigle tenants into buying their houses. Thousands are being sold every year and the number for letting is becoming increasingly small.
This is a shocking move on the part of the Government, and I can only assume they did not put this proposal in the Bill originally because they were afraid of losing more support than they have already lost. This Bill gave me thousands of votes in my by-election. If this provision had been the law I would have increased my majority by a couple of thousand.
The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 92.
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Neave, Airey||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Stevens, G. P.|
|Hurd, A R.||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)||Studholme, H. G.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Page, R. G.||Summers, G. S.|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Kerr, H. W.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Teeling, W.|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Prlkinglon, Capt. R. A.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Powell, J. Enoch||Thomas, P. J. M. (Coway)|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Profumo, J. D.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Rayner, Brig. R.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)||Redmayne, M.||Turton, R. H.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Macdonald, Sir Peter||Ridsdale, J. E.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)||Wall, P. H. B,|
|Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Maclean, Fitzroy||Roper, Sir Harold||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Wellwood, W.|
|Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Russell, R. S.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Maude, Angus||Scott, R. Donald||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Madlicott, Brig. F.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Mellor, Sir John||Shepherd, William|
|Molson, A. H. E.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Hargreaves, A.||Pryde, D. J.|
|Adams, Richard||Hayman, F H.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)||Rankin, John|
|Bence, C. R||Herbison, Miss M.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Benson, G.||Hoy, J. H.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Ross, William|
|Boardman, H.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley|
|Brockway, A. F.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D, D||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Carmichael, J.||Keenan, W.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Champion, A. J.||King, Dr. H. M.||Steel, T.|
|Cluntie, J.||Lawson, G. M.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Collick, P H||Lewis, Arthur||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||MacColl, J. E.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Mclnnes, J.||Thornton, E.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Timmons, J.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Usborne, H. C.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Manuel, A. C.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Mitchison, G. R.||Weitzman, D.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Moyle, A.||West, D. G.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Mulley, F. W.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Fernyhough, E.||Oswald, T.||Wigg, George|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Palmer, A. M. F||Willey, F. T.|
|Foot, M. M.||Pargiter, G. A.||Willis, E. G.|
|Forman, J. C||Parker, J.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Pearson, A.||Yates, V. F.|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Popplewell, E.|
|Hale, Leslie||Porter, G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.|
|Hannan, W.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.