(1) Not more than three months before the date upon which landlord or an owner (as defined in section 26(4) of this Act) will be entitled to recover possession of a dwelling-house from a tenant or an occupier thereof he may commence procedings in the court against the tenant or occupier as the case may be in order to establish his future right to recover possession of the dwelling-houses and the court may make an order for possession suspended until the due termination of the tenancy or of the right of occupation.
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Bill expands the field of control, this time calling it regulation, which postpones the right of an owner to possession of his property. When a right to possession has arisen, the landlord will still, under the Bill, have the delay of having to apply to the court for a possession order. He will still have to go through the court procedure to get an order for possession, following on, in due course, with a warrant for possession, before his right to possession can be exercised. He is left in doubt and anxiety as to whether or not he will get possession because, as the law stands, he cannot start proceedings for possession until there has been a breach by the tenant; that is, that the tenant has overstayed his term. The landlord has the right to possession when he commences the action.
The first object of this Clause is to relieve that uncertainty of whether the landlord will be able to exercise his right to possession at an early time after that right arises. If he has to wait until the tenant is a trespasser—is holding over after the end of his term—he is kept out of possession for whatever period it takes to get the case before the court and for the court to make its order for possession, which may yet be suspended for some weeks.
This applies particularly in regard to the new Clauses that we have earlier today embodied in the Bill. There is, for example, the new Clause dealing with the owner occupier who has been in residence and rents his property for a certain time—telling the tenant that he will require it at a certain time—and then finds the tenant still in possession. That Clause gives that owner occupier the right to immediate possession but, under the present procedure, he will not get immediate possession if the tenant chooses to hold over. He may get possession after a period of weeks, and be left in that uncertainty whether he can make arrangements to move into his own house on the date on which the tenancy terminates or whether he will have to wait for some weeks before he can move in.
Is not my hon. Friend being too kind about this? If the tenant wanted to be really difficult, it could take some months, could it not, to go through the legal procedures?
The learned Attorney-General has assured us that this can be done in an average of 11 days, to get the case before the court under the expedition procedure. But I wanted to come to this as my second point.
I think that the Attorney-General is too optimistic, and that the Clause, if it is accepted, will avoid disorganisation of court procedure by the application of that expedition procedure. I say that the Attorney-General is too optimistic because he bases his optimism on 7,000 cases brought during the first quarter of the year, 90 of which were subject to application for expedition.
This was at a time when the expedition procedure was not well known to the legal profession, or, in fact, to the many laymen who bring possession cases without the assistance of a lawyer, and it was to be expected that the applications for expedition would be very few. I imagine that after the publicity given to our debates on this subject in Committee and on the Floor of the House, many more will apply for expedition.
Let us suppose that even 50 per cent. of those 7,000 cases a quarter were subject to an expedition application. Surely the more that apply the more difficult it will be for the courts to deal with these cases, and the less expeditious will each case be. We shall be back again to the position of being unable to get a possession case before the judge or the registrar in country county courts for a matter of months.
It is quite different in the case of county courts in London, or in large towns, where they sit continuously and where it is not difficult to get an application before the judge or the registrar and have it heard in a few days. But we have said again and again from this side that it is difficult to get expedition in the country county courts where the judge is moving around the circuit and is not sitting every day.
When this expedition procedure becomes well known and used, I cannot see how the county courts are to accept applications of this sort without causing complete chaos in their other work. All their other work would have to be set aside.
If we had a system whereby the landlord entitled to possession could ask the court a month, two months, or three months ahead for a declaratory judgment that he would be entitled to possession at the time the tenancy ends, then the landlord would be relieved of this uncertainty as to whether he was going to get possession on the due date, the dislocation of court procedure by thousands of applications for expedition could be avoided, and this would all be at no harm to anyone and would bring the county courts into a very useful service to the public. If we adopt this form of anticipatory procedure, what harm can this do to anyone?
I appreciate that it is a novel idea in law to be able to take proceedings in order to establish a future right, but I think a novel idea is very necessary in the circumstances in which we are placed by the Bill. By extending so much the area of control and making it necessary for so many possession cases to be brought in future, unless we can make arrangements for anticipating a possession order in this way and anticipating the end of the tenancy I am sure there will be chaos in the courts. There will be a perfectly ordinary form of procedure in the courts except that the court will be asked to decide whether or not, at the end of a tenancy—ending not more than three months, probably not more than two months hence—the landlord will be entitled to possession. He would then be given a possession order to take effect on the date of the end of the tenancy. He would then be able to obtain his warrant for possession from the court and to execute the warrant so that he could get possession on the due date.
For those landlords who may be unnecessarily anxious and through an abundance of caution take these anticipatory proceedings against the tenant when the tenant intends genuinely to go out at the end of the tenancy, subsection (2) of the new Clause would take effect. The landlord himself would bear the costs for his peace of mind, if one can put it that way. If he takes these proceedings and they are undefended and he therefore gets judgment for possession on a future date a few weeks hence, it is right that he should pay the costs of the proceedings. If the proceedings were defended the award as to costs would be as usual within the discretion of the court.
Although this is a novel suggestion, I am sure that it is very necessary as an adjunct to the extension of the regulation of tenancies and one which will relieve hardship which otherwise might fall on owners whom we have recognised, particularly in the new Clause accepted yesterday, are entitled to immediate possession. It will relieve their uncertainty, the hardship which they might suffer, and relieve congestion in the courts.
I have not spoken so far in the debate, but I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for following up a novel suggestion raised in Committee and for putting it in excellent form. The Clause should be supported because of the time it takes to take a case to the court. I understand that some courts in Cornwall meet only once a month, so there could be long delay in obtaining possession.
We want to see that houses are not left vacant when people go abroad. I should have thought this Clause would commend itself to the Government because it would encourage those going abroad to let their houses. Many are anxious to take up service overseas. I thought it was the policy of the Government, through the Department dealing with overseas aid, to influence teachers, those with technical knowledge, doctors, and so on, to go overseas and give a period of service. During that period they would want to let their houses unfurnished. Many find it better to store their furniture or to take some of it with them.
I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to this suggestion. In Committee, I brought to his notice the fact that at present a number of people who have worked abroad send back their wives and children in the belief that when they return they will get possession of their homes. They often have to go to relations in the meantime and wait for the husband to take further action on their behalf.
The suggestion put forward in this Clause would be of great assistance to the people I have mentioned and it would also to those whom we discussed earlier who are to retire and know that they have to leave their accommodation on retirement. They would be able to give this very adequate notice to their tenants. This would cover the point which the Minister said earlier was worrying him on new Clause 11. I suggest to him that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has found an excellent way of settling this problem and I hope that the Clause will meet with the approval of the Minister.
No one could have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) advocating this Clause without realising the considerable relief that it would bring to the problem. Kindness to the tenant and the landlord is the idea behind the Bill and the Clause achieves that. There is nothing more unkind than uncertainty. If after the legal lease has concluded there is uncertainty week after week and perhaps month after month as to whether or not there is to be an eviction, that is most unkind. If it is possible, before the conclusion of that legal agreement, to establish once and for all whether possession is to be given to the landlord, that would be by far the best conclusion to this problem and would bring peace of mind to all sides.
I have always felt, throughout the debates to which I have listened, that there has been an under-assessment of the time which must elapse between the arising of the dispute and the decision. We have to bear in mind that from the date on which the tenant should get out he has to contact a solicitor, correspond with him and take advice. It may be a matter of weeks before the case even reaches the court. Even if we accept the advice of the Attorney-General, who has mentioned several periods but mostly 11 days in which to get a verdict, it must be remembered that a court commonly gives six weeks before possession is given. Therefore, it may be up to three months before finality is achieved.
Another problem which the House has not discussed, but which may come up on later Amendments, concerns the employee whose employer is also his landlord. For the first time he is made subject to this sort of legislation. There may be a case of a school master who, because of something connected with his morals, or drunkenness, is dismissed. It is highly undesirable that such a person should remain on the premises. There may be an example of a person holding a position in a mental hospital who is clearly unfit to do so and who should get out at once. Or there may be a drunken caretaker of a block of flats. It is highly desirable that as soon as notice of dismissal is given action should be taken to ensure that he vacates his accommodation, and the sooner the steps are taken the better.
There are other Amendments under which that particular problem can be discussed. It is a real problem, particularly where the employee may be a person holding considerable responsibility and apparently quite unfit, even for the shortest period of time, to remain in the house from which he conducts his job. This Clause would be a very useful approach to this kind of problem.
It is rather a pity we could not have taken this new Clause earlier in the proceedings because if, as I feel sure they will, the Government accept it, it would have shortened the discussion that we had on new Clause No. 11.
This seems to be a procedure of beautiful simplicity. Provided that the Government accept the Clause it will meet a very large part of the case of the people whom I and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) have in mind. These are the people serving overseas, civil servants and so on, who know a certain time ahead that they will want to come back to their own homes. Using this splendid piece of mechanism these people will be able to file a claim so that when they come back the time will be due.
Running through all our debates here, and in Committee, there has been, from the Government side, an attempt to put such a bite upon the landlord as to make this, in their estimation, a fairer system. I believe that without the support and encouragement of the landlord we shall not make the housing situation better, but a good deal worse.
This Clause, which in no way weakens what the Government are trying to do, could prove to be useful in showing the landlord that the Government were not trying to be unreasonably tough. It would show to the landlord who believes that he has a genuine grievance that he could go to law. I would have thought that the Government would be anxious to accept this Clause since, as has been pointed out, a situation could build up in the courts, as the expedition procedure becomes more widely known, where there will be something of a logjam and this would act as a buffer between what might be a serious blockage at a later stage.
The discussion we had yesterday on new Clause No. 11, dealing with people who want a house for their retirement is exactly the point covered by new Clause No. 7. Such persons would have a three-month grace period in which to set the machinery in action, to make certain that when their retirement falls due the legal obstacles have been overcome. The Clause does not weaken the Bill, but improves it considerably. Further, it gives landlords an opportunity of seeing that the Government are not always biased in favour of the tenant, but realise that the landlord is a vital unit in the property market, as was proved by Milner Holland, who said that the private landlord had a very real rôle to play. The Clause would give encouragement to private landlords up and down the country.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir Anthony Meyer), described the new Clause as one of beautiful simplicity. Alas, it is wholly impracticable. The fact that it is new does not mean that for that reason we on this side of the House do not approve of it. We are all in favour of constructive novelty. To call it new is a massive understatement. It is a revolutionary proposal so far as the law of the country is concerned. It involves nothing less than establishing a right before that right has arisen, which is a novel conception to the law.
The new Clause, as I understand it, is not limited in its terms to lettings for a fixed term, but it is difficult to see how it could possibly apply to any other cases than fixed terms. As to periodic tenancies, the effective termination of a periodic tenancy depends upon the service of a valid notice to quit. In a case where a notice to quit of less than three months is required to end a tenancy, it is certainly not clear to me whether, under the Clause, the landlord would have to wait until he had served such a notice before applying for an order for possession under the new Clause.
Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. The intention is to establish a future right. If the future right has not yet arisen by the service of notice, of course the landlord could not bring the action. Once he had served his four weeks' notice, however, he would be able to establish his future right. In that case, therefore, he would bring it within a month before the end of the tenancy.
As I see it, the establishment of this conception of a future right can only be effectively done in the case of a letting for a fixed term. As a proposal, it would create difficulties in regard to all kinds of tenancies—for instance, service tenancies and occupations, which are brought to an end automatically by the terms of the employment. The real deficiency of the Clause, however, is that it seeks to assert a right, namely, a right to possess, before that right has arisen. I cannot see any court or legal system giving countenance to so academic an exercise.
The justification of what is proposed is the alleged delay and difficulty in obtaining a county court order for possession. I do not wish to weary the House with a repetition of the confidence with which I have stated earlier in the debate on Report that the fears of right hon. and hon. Members opposite of a log jam of work in the county courts will prove to be as unfounded as similar fears that were expressed during the debates on the Protection from Eviction Act. In that instance we were similarly warned that the courts would be choked with applications for possession orders and that long delays would result. It has not been so.
The judges and registrars have done their work admirably. The procedures for expediting the applications for the hearing of summonses for possession have worked extremely well. The power given to the registrars to make such orders, the transfer of cases from one county court to another and the reduction in the time through the procedure for reducing the period allowed for delivery of defence have all resulted in the courts being able to deal with these matters in a matter of days rather than of weeks.
In those circumstances, the fears that have been expressed have proved as unfounded in the past as, I have every reason to believe, they will prove unfounded in the future. Therefore, this proposal is not justified by those fears, it is impracticable and it is a wholly unwarranted and unattractive academic exercise and anathema to any system of law.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) intervened to say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made extremely heavy weather of this Clause. His objections appear to be twofold. First, that it is new and revolutionary That comes a little surprisingly from a member of this progressive Government, poised for resolute action, anxious to apply the new thought, and all the rest of it. It is, to say the least, a little odd.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman kept on repeating that it was impractical. If that were true, that would be a powerful objection, but he gave no reasons other than his own assertion for that view. In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's office and his knowledge of the law we take that assertion seriously, but I do not think that he can ask the House to reject a new Clause of this sort on that mere assertion.
Nor, indeed, do the difficulties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put up seem to be insuperable, or even, if I may say so with respect, substantial. We are accustomed—there is the analogy of proceeiing by injunction when a right is threatened—to taking proceedings in advance to protect our rights, and there is no reason to believe that a court could not, and should not, contemplate steps taken for that purpose.
I agree that this procedure would be particularly applicable, particularly helpful, in the case of a let for a fixed term. I think that that is the easiest example, and it is precisely that class of case in which it would also be the most useful. This is the case, such as we discussed earlier, of the person abroad for two or three years on an appointment, and who lets for that period, but has some reason to believe that his tenant may not be prepared to move. This is the case of the person expecting retirement and wanting to move to the house that he has bought for that purpose, but has reason to believe that the tenant may not move. But, as my hon. Friend said, this is most applicable to a fixed term. Notice to quit would be served, and would be followed with these proceedings.
I do not think that the Attorney-General addressed his mind to what is a serious proposition, and a proposition which, if accepted, would diminish many of the evils of the Bill, and reduce many of the apprehensions which people feel about it. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done the House a great service if he had appreciated that there was a real and effective purpose behind the new Clause, and had sought, if he saw practical difficulties in it—which he did not disclose—to assist the House by dealing with them, rather than putting them up as an objection to a procedure of this sort.
The Clause provides protection against abuse. If the proceedings are undefended, the costs will fall on the applicant. Obviously, that will be the case, but if an attempt were made wrongly to use it this would be a very proper disincentive to abuse of this procedure. If the case were contested, costs would, as the Clause provides, follow the normal procedure of going with the event and being in the discretion of the court. There is, therefore, adequate protection against misuse.
The argument for the Clause does not turn on the issue to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, namely, whether there is likely to be what he called a log jam in the courts. This proposal goes beyond that, because even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and the court procedures work rapidly, there are none the less cases where having to wait for the court procedures to be completed imposes real hardship. I mention the case of a man returning from abroad with nowhere to go except to his own house. He wants to get himself and his family into that house. It will be a real hardship to him if there is a delay of a few days while he goes to court, a few more days while he gets the order, and perhaps a further day or two before the order is effective.
The Clause is intended to deal with this situation. I regard it as a very unhappy indication of the Government's general attitude that not only did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept it, but that he did not give any indication whatever even of sympathy with its object, still less any intention to try to use his great legal authority to try, if necessary, to put it into a more nearly perfect shape. I hope that in those circumstances my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel that they should press the matter.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson:
I do not want unduly to delay the House, but I must make a few observations in support of my learned Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). This is a problem of the West Country. Apart from Service people coming back from a period abroad, many Cornish people go abroad to work. It is said that wherever there is a hole in the ground one will find a Cornishman at the bottom. Many engineers and nonferrous miners go abroad for two or three years and then return to their homes in Cornwall. It is common for them to let their houses while they are away and also for them to experience difficulty in regaining possession when they return.
Any idea that it is possible to obtain a possession order in a few days from a country county court is utterly wrong. There is considerable delay and it is difficult for people to get these matters dealt with quickly. The Clause appeals to me as reasonable, and I hope that it will be accepted.
I must take up the challenge which the Attorney-General has thrown down. He dismissed the Clause on the ground that it is revolutionary and academic. But we are dealing with a situation which has been produced by relieving people of any obligation to fulfil their contracts, however solemnly entered into, and whatever the danger caused to the other party. As my right hon. Friend has suggested, evils will be created, however great may be the social necessity for this principle.
People will come home from abroad with large families and will literally have nowhere else to go. The concept that people should stick to solemn contracts is not abhorrent to many systems of law, including the common law.
because I should have found difficulty in answering that question. I suggest that, in a sense, we are dealing with a situation which has been created by cutting across quite respectable and honoured concepts of the common law. It is not unreasonable to look for unusual remedies to remedy the evil that this may create.
It is no good describing this as academic. It is a practical problem which we must deal with, and it requires a practical remedy. I suggest that my hon. Friends have put forward at least the nub of a perfectly practical remedy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there might be difficulties in respect of service tenancies and periodic tenancies, but those difficulties can be overcome with a little ingenuity in drafting. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has not given a convincing reason why this evil should not arise. In fact, I heard of a case only three days ago where somebody came home from abroad with four children and expected to obtain possession of his house, but, at the last moment, the tenant prayed in aid the provisions of the temporary Act.
|Division No. 220.]||AYES||[1.0 a.m.|
|Agnew, Commander Sir Peter||Campbell, Gordon||Eyre, Reginald|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||Carlisle, Mark||Farr, John|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Foster, Sir John|
|Astor, John||Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)|
|Balniel, Lord||Cole, Norman||Glover, Sir Douglas|
|Batsford, Brian||Cooke, Robert||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.|
|Bell, Ronald||Corfield, F. V.||Goodhart, Philip|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Costain, A. P.||Goodhew, Victor|
|Biffen, John||Crawley, Aidan||Gower, Raymond|
|Siggs-Davison, John||Crotthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Cunningham, Sir Knox||Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)|
|Blaker, Peter||Curran, Charles||Gurden, Harold|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.||Dance, James||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Braine, Bernard||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Doughty, Charles||Harvie Anderson, Miss|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Drayson, G. B.||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel|
|Buck, Antony||Errington, Sir Eric||Hendry, Forbes|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Talbot, John E.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Mitchell, David||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Murton, Oscar||Walder, David (High Peak)|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Neave, Airey||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Wall, Patrick|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Page, R. Graham (Crosby)||Walters, Dennis|
|Kirk, Peter||Peel, John||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Kitson, Timothy||Percival, Ian||Webster, David|
|Lambton, Viscount||Peyton, John||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Whitelaw, William|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Pym, Francis||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Longden, Gilbert||Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Loveys, Walter H.||Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|MacArthur, Ian||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Wylie, N. R.|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Maginnis, John E.||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mathew, Robert||Stainton, Keith||Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Stanley, Hn. Richard|
|Abse, Leo||Heffer, Eric S.||Pentland, Norman|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Hoosofi, H. E.||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Horner, John||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Atkinson, Norman||Howie, W.||Probert, Arthur|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Rankin, John|
|Baxter, William||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Rees, Merlyn|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Jackson, Colin||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Binns, John||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Johnson, carol (Lewisham, s.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Boardman, H.||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Kelley, Richard||Rowland, Christopher|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)||Sheldon, Robert|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)||Ledger, Ron||Shore, Peter (Stepney)|
|Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N' c' tle-on-Tyne, C.)|
|Buchanan, Richard||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Silkin, John (Deptford)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Lewis, Ron (Carilsle)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Coleman, Donald||Lomas, Kenneth||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Lubbock, Eric||Small, William|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.||McBride, Neil||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Dalyell, Tam||MacCoil, James||Swain, Thomas|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||McGuire, Michael||Swingler, Stephen|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Taverne, Dick|
|Dell, Edmund||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S)||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Doig, Peter||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Tinn, James|
|Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.||Tomney, Frank|
|Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)||Manuel, Archie||Varley, Eric G.|
|Ennals, David||Mapp, Charles||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Ensor, David||Mayhew, Christopher|
|Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Vardley)||Mellish, Robert||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mendelson, J. J.||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)||Millan, Bruce||Watkins, Tudor|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Weitzman, David|
|Ford, Ben||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Wigg, Rt. Hn. George|
|Freeson, Reginald||Molloy, William||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Garrett, W. E.||Morris, Charles (Openshaw)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Garrow, A.||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Murray, Albert||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Ginsburg, David||Noei-Baker, Francis (Swindon)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Norwood, Christopher||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Grey, Charles||O'Malley, Brian||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Orme, Stanley||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Oswald, Thomas||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Padley, Walter||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hannan, William||Palmer, Arthur|
|Harper, Joseph||Parkin, B. T.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Pavitt, Laurence||Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCann|
|Hazell, Bert||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|