Skip to main content

Clause 5—(Surveys Of Planning Areas And Preparation Of Development Plans)

Volume 437: debated on Monday 12 May 1947

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, at the end, to insert:

"(d) An owner of any land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition as aforesaid may at any time after approval of such designation by the Minister give notice in writing to the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land within the period specified in the notice, not being less than three months from the date of such notice, and thereupon the council shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof upon the date of the service of the said notice, and the power conferred by subsection (2) of section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is deemed to have been served by virtue of this subsection."
With the departure from the Chamber of the Lord President of the Council, whose intervention in these proceedings has been as unprofitable as it has been casual, we may perhaps return to consideration of the more important matters with which the Committee is concerned. In moving this Amendment, I am bound to say it is in some degree illustrative of the difficulties in which the arbitrary procedure applied to this Bill has placed Parliament in its consideration of it. This Amendment was, in fact, tabled during the Committee stage. It was not moved on account of the application of the guillotine procedure. Although it was not moved—and this illustrates the complexities in which we are involved on account of this peculiar procedure—some discussion took place in regard to its merits on the subject of cognate Amendments which were moved and discussed in respect of Clause 5. In my submission, the dis- cussion which took place in regard to the substantial merits of this Amendment showed too limited, too restricted, and too narrow a Ministerial approach to the merits of this Amendment. That is why it is my duty to move it again this afternoon.

The purpose of the Amendment—as the right hon. Gentleman and Members of the Committee will be aware—is to provide for counter-notice to purchase in certain defined situations. The effect of the designation of land compulsory purchase, as prescribed by this Clause, is to put the owner or tenant in respect of whose land the designation is made under a suspended sentence of execution. The Minister has rather paradoxically argued on occasion that the designation of land as subject to compulsory acquisition is in some mysterious way positively beneficial to the owner. I do not know whether he will repeat that view to the Committee this afternoon, but if he does, I can tell him this; That it is a view which is certainly not widely shared by the owners and tenants of land to whom this procedure of designation is likely to be applied. I can only think that the Minister puts forward that point of view on the Johnsonian principle—if a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.

There is not even this specialised advantage in the suspended sentence of execution which is imposed by the designation of land as subject to compulsory purchase within a 15-year period. That sentence is a suspended sentence and an indefinite sentence; and I think it right that the Committee should try to put itself into the mind of a person placed in such a position by having his land included in a designation order of that sort. I think that the normal reaction of such a person might well be to wish to "cut the painter," and to get rid of obligations which, after all, were not within his contemplation when he acquired the land of which he is now either owner or tenant as the case may be. I think that the onus must be on the Minister to say why, in such circumstances, the owner or tenant of the land, subject in this way to a designation to compulsory purchase, should not be allowed to do this. I think that is more evident since there is express Statutory provision in two other Statutes empowering the owner or tenant to do this very thing. I refer to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, of which the archi- tect was my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), and the New Towns Act, 1946, which has a place on the Statute Book as a result primarily of the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman himself. We have had some sort of pre-view of the way in which the Minister addresses himself to the task of discharging this onus. We have heard something of his views on this matter in Standing Committee, although as I have said, the Motion was not formally moved in Standing Committee. The Minister's method of discharging the onus which lies upon him in this matter appears to be to pray in aid the provisions of Clause 17 of the Bill. In my submission, Clause 17 does not govern the situation for which we desire to legislate by this Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

The rights of a property-owner or tenant under Clause 17 are governed by the refusal of permission to develop land, or if not actual refusal, the grant of permission only under unduly onerous conditions. Those are the only circumstances in which the provisions of Clause 17 operate to the benefit of a landowner or tenant, and thus far I think I carry the Minister with me. But—and this is why we on this side of the Committee attach such importance to this Amendment—there will, of course, be a vast number of cases in which the principle of development is not affected at all. What about the owner of existing buildings? There is no question of development there, but he is placed under a suspended sentence of compulsory acquisition by the designation of his land under Clause 5. What about the small tradesman with the shop, or the man of modest means who has acquired his house and hopes to retain it, as a domestic haven from all the various trials and stresses to which one is subject in life today? Both these classes of persons, well meriting consideration, will not receive it under Clause 17, and indeed will not receive consideration at all unless the Committee accepts this Amendment.

The small tradesman to whom I have referred wants good will—that is the essence of his continuing in business. The man of modest means owning a house in the circumstances mentioned is chiefly concerned to retain a measure of undisturbed proprietorship. Both these people require security of tenure, but neither can have it under the threat of designation for compulsory purchase under Clause 5 of this Bill. Our submission to the Committee is that people who are placed in the position of the small tradesman or the owner-occupier, whose cases I have quoted by way of typical illustration, should be entitled to say to the local planning authority, "You have willed this thing; you must accept the responsibility and the obligation to purchase; you, as the local planning authority, can let this property with some knowledge of what you have in mind, but I as property owner, subject to your undefined threat of compulsory acquisition, am not in that advantageous position; I cannot possibly know, and I cannot indicate to a prospective tenant or purchaser, what intentions the local planning authority may be expected to have in mind."

I have said that we are only really seeking to incorporate in this Bill the principles which already exist in two Acts of Parliament, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the New Towns Act, of which the Minister himself is the architect. The Minister has sought to distinguish—I recognise his intellectual grasp of argument sufficiently to know that he realises that if he is to resist this Amendment he must try to distinguish—between the position we take up today and that which he conceded in the New Towns Act last year. He sought, in the Committee stage, to distinguish the principle of the New Towns Act from the principle which we put forward today. On the sixth day of our proceedings in Committee on 5th March, the right hon. Gentleman sought to distinguish the position under the New Towns Act by suggesting that designation in respect of the New Towns Act involved a degree of certainty which was not to be found, or would not be found, under the designation for compulsory purchase proposed in Clause 5 of this Bill. He used these words:
"Under this provision there is no such certainty. The local authority must be of opinion, if my Amendment is accepted, that they will require the land, and they must have a bona fide opinion, and the Minister must be satisfied that they are of that opinion. But their programme may change. They may decide it is more urgent to develop some other area first, and in that case it may well turn out that the area will not be acquired within that period. There is not the same certainty as is the case under the New Towns Act.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 5th March, 1947; C. 244.]
That speech belongs, I suppose, to what in the history of town and country planning will figure as the pre-Stevenage era, because it now appears that there may be the possibility of uncertainty even in the case of the designation of new towns, which weakens to that extent the distinction which the Minister seeks to draw between the two positions taken up. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs; I am surprised that that should be his reaction, because we have come to respect at any rate his motives, even if we cannot always respect his reasoning. I am sorry he should see something humorous in the subject matter of this Amendment, which I can assure him is a matter of great moment to a great many honourable and useful citizens of this country.

Perhaps I had better not Jet the hon. Gentleman go any further in misinterpreting my laugh. It was because of the curious nature of his argument, that is all.

Of course, these things depend upon the point of view, and I am in the hands of a wider audience than the right hon. Gentleman, who has got, shall we say, a somewhat specialised and blinkered approach to a great many of these problems. I suggest to the Committee that the Minister's statement about the lack of certainty about designation under this Clause might well be construed as a ministerial invitation to the local planning authorities to designate far more land than they are likely to acquire by compulsory purchase. I believe that that is a very dangerous aspect of the possibilities inherent in this Clause. This tendency to over-insure in the matter of the designation of land for compulsory acquisition is a tendency which we have unhesitatingly condemned throughout the proceedings of this Committee; and it is one of the things which this Amendment would stop, because this Amendment would make it unprofitable for a local planning authority to designate too much land for compulsory purchase. The effect of this Amendment would be to impose certain sanctions on the practice of over-insurance. If this Amendment is carried, as I hope and expect it will be, the local or planning authority which designates land too widely and too arbitrarily as being subject to compulsory acquisition within the next 15 years will do so in the full knowledge that they are liable to have a counter-notice to purchase served upon them, in which case they must assume the obligations of purchasing the land themselves.

There is one further point. I have dealt with the Minister's effort to distinguish the new Towns Act, but the Minister also seeks to differentiate the Act of 1944. The powers given under that Act are not quite identical with the powers we seek for this Bill, but that is a point which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend, who is so familiar with that Act, will elaborate a little later on in the consideration of this Clause. I hope I have made out to the Committee a case for incorporating this provision in the Clause. I believe that every reason of precedent—because it is a provision already figuring in Acts placed upon the Statute Book by two successive Governments every reason of justice to the individual; every consideration of good administration combine to counsel the incorporation of this Amendment in the Bill. In that confident conviction I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

I wish very briefly to support this Amendment. Once land has become designated, the black hand will be suspended over it, and an owner will not be able to sell, no one will want to move in, so no one will be able to move out. This threat will go on for 15 long years. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) referred to a suspended sentence of execution There is a most recent parallel which we might draw, that of the Nigerian ritual murders, where the criminals were trooped up half a dozen times to the scaffold before they were finally bumped off. The only point on which that parallel breaks down is that most land owners have committed no crime except that of being landowners. I suggest that this is an extremely fair Amendment in that it allows the landowner, if his land is designated, to get rid of it and go somewhere else, to emigrate or do anything he likes. If the Minister does not accept this Amendment, our landowners will be put in the same position as those landowners in ancient Russia who, being suspect, were ordered to remain on their estates during the Tsar's pleasure, and I am quite certain that this Government will not wish to emulate Tsarist Russia. I very strongly support the Amendment.

This Amendment arises out of a misconception of the purpose of designation. Designation follows the making of a plan. The local authority makes its plan, which has to be approved by the Minister, usually after a public inquiry. Now the plan itself will, generally speaking, provide for certain areas being developed by the local authority itself. It was thought to be a convenience to the landowner that he should know which parts of the plan it was proposed to carry out within the next ten years, and the method of informing the landowner is the method of designation. If it be true that the landowner is under this awful threat, it does not arise primarily out of designation, but out of the making of the plan. The plan will in most cases be carried out, whether the land is designated or not, but it is thought that it would be better that the landowner should know which parts of the plan were to be carried out at the earliest stage and which were not, and that is the real purpose of designation. It is also a convenience to the local authorities that they should clarify their own minds and come to a decision themselves as to the priorities in the carryout of the plan.

Does the Minister mean to suggest, when he talks about the earliest stages, that the process of planned development as envisaged by this Government makes a period of 15 years the earliest stages?

4. p.m.

The 15 years' period is being reduced to ten, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen from our Amendments, but I am not making debating points; I am merely saying that most plans involving redevelopment are long-term plans. Many of our cities require drastic redevelopment to make them good places to live in, and obviously that redevelopment cannot be carried out in a short time. Although the plan may set out what is the local authority's conception of the future of its area, obviously the redevelopment cannot be done all at once or within a short time. From the local authority's point of view, the purpose of designation is to indicate which parts of the redevelopment it is proposed to carry out at the earliest stage. That is the case for designation. In the vast majority of instances, there will be no inconvenience to the owner, who will be left to carry on his business, or to reside where he is residing, or to collect his rents if he is an owner and not an occupier. It need not affect him in the slightest degree.

Except that he will not be able to sell in the open market with that threat of designation hanging over him.

I do not see why not. I. have already explained that if the threat of designation were not hanging over him, he would still be liable to compulsory purchase. I would like the Committee to understand this point, because it is important. Suppose the local authority made its plans, but the designation procedure were entirely dropped from the Bill; that would not prevent the local authority from implementing its plan in exactly the same way as if there had been designation. The only effect of designation is that it puts the owner on notice that his area is to be dealt with first, and it compels the local authority to make up its mind as to which area it is going to use first. It there were no designation, there would still be the threat; owners would still examine the plan and ask, "Will my land be dealt with before any other?" They would still have this so-called threat. But is it a threat? With the revised provisions for the payment of compensation—which I do not want to go into at any length—if the local authority is to pay market price in respect of the acquisition, what is the threat? The owner knows that when the time comes for acquisition he will be paid the ordinary market price. There is no reason why he should not sell on that basis or people should not buy. Therefore, this talk about threats is not really applicable. I agree quite freely that, as long as the local authority could have acquired at 1939 values, there was some basis for the fear, but if they are to acquire at present-day values, there is no justification for the fear.

I want now to refer to the false analogies that were drawn by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) as regards the New Towns Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. I call them false analogies for the reasons I gave in Committee. The hon. Gentleman quoted a part of my speech, but there was another part which drove my point still further home. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to rely on those Measures, why did he not so frame his Amendment that the notice could be given only after. a number of years? The notice requiring the local authority to buy, under this Amendment, can be given at any time after designation, whereas in the other two Acts the notice can be given only, in the one case, after seven years and, in the other, after five years, but even then the Minister can revoke the notice unless the land has no beneficial use. Even though the notice is given requiring the local authority to purchase, it need not be operated on if the land can still continue to be used. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to rely upon analogies, he should have framed the Amendment so as to make them fit exactly those two Measures.

I rely upon the fact that the cases are not analogous, and that in the New Towns Act and the Town and Country Planning Act the purpose of designation is ultimately to acquire the land—there is no doubt about it—whereas, in the case of designation under Clause 5 of this Bill, the local authority merely has to be satisfied that the land is likely to be purchased within 10 years. Finally, there is no danger that local authorities will over-designate, because the designation as well as the plan is subject to approval by the Minister after a public inquiry. The last word does not rest with the local authority but with the Minister, who is bound to act judicially and in the light of the evidence that he gets at the local public inquiry. If it be true that the local authority has over-estimated the amount of land it is likely to want to purchase in 10 years, that will soon be corrected when the order is made.

May I explain the point arising out of the Town and Country Planning Act to which both the Minister and I have referred? The Section in question is, of course, Section 2 (4), and the Minister's argument on that is that if I pray in aid the analogy of that Section, I ought in the Amendment to reproduce the proviso relating to the five-year expiration. Of course, the two things are not entirely analogous, because our Amendment would enable the owner in such circumstances to serve a counter notice to purchase, but that is not the effect of Section 2 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, of which the operative words are that his interest shall be treated as excepted from the operation of any order under that Section; in other words, the remedy of Section 2 (4) of the New Towns Act goes further in the interest of the owner of the land than our Amendment. It is because the remedy goes further and is more radical in that case that no doubt the time limit was imposed. The lesser remedy involved in the counter notice to purchase embodied in our Amendment does not, therefore, require a five-year period of waiting such as was prescribed in the 1944 Act.

I shall not try to follow the hon. Member in that somewhat involved argument. All that I claim is that the two cases are not analogous, and the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he agrees with me. Therefore, it is no use praying in aid those other Measures. For these reasons, I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

I am always filled with admiration at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning, with a multitude of words, skates on somewhat thin ice. The reasons he has put forward for resisting the Amendment will not stand close examination. He has sought to draw a subtle distinction between the purpose of designation under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the New Towns Act, 1946, and the designation under this Bill. He says that, under the first two Measures, the purpose was to acquire the land; here, he says that under Clause 5 it is only designation to show that the land is likely to be acquired. All I can say is that I do not think people who are informed that their land is designated as likely to be compulsorily acquired will gain any confidence from the subtle distinction drawn by the Minister.

What is the point of designation under this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said, accurately, that the fact that a person's land is not included within the area designated as liable to compulsory purchase gives no security of tenure. As I understand the Bill, the farmer outside the circle marked on the plan is just as likely to lose his land as the individual whose land is inside the circle. Therefore, from the point of view of giving security of tenure and of letting people know how they stand, designation under this Bill does not really serve much in the way of a useful purpose. I quite agree that the man who is to lose his property, his business, his livelihood, or his land, is entitled to have some notice of what is to be done, but when the Minister goes beyond that and gives long advance notice, notice which was to be 15 years in duration, I suggest that that sort of notice is doing no more and no less than cast a blight over the land within the circle.

What is the purpose of these plans? It is to plan for the best use of the country. That does not mean sterilising vast areas for long periods as being liable to compulsory purchase. My hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, referred specifically to houses and buildings. I would like to refer to agricultural land, because I am sure the Minister will agree that the great majority of the land which will be affected by designation will be land which is not built upon and which is agricultural in character, and although it may be that if the farmer holds on to the very end of the time when his property is seized from him he will' get, after much negotiation, compensation according to the market values at that time, it still seems to me that the effect of designation of his farm over such a long period might do him very grave injury. He might find that directions were served upon him by the Ministry of Agriculture to do certain things even though there were only five years to go before his land would be taken from him and the period expire. I suggest to the Minister that a farmer, in such a position, might well say: "I would like to get out of this, I would like to free myself of this liability. I want to improve my farm, and I want my son to carry on the farm after me. It is obvious that as I am within the area designated, I cannot do that here." It might not be easy for that farmer to find someone willing to come into the circle designated as liable to compulsory purchase.

Therefore, I suggest that, just as in the New Towns Act, there is also a case here for saying that, after a certain time has elapsed, the farmer should be entitled and should have the right to say to the planners, "You have planned my land, you have said you were going to take it over for redevelopment; it is only fair that you should relieve me and allow me to go and settle elsewhere so that I can get a farm, improve it, develop it, where my son can follow on after me." I ask the Minister to think over this matter again. I remember pressing him on this very point in the Debates on the New Towns Bill, and he seemed to be far more sympathetic to the point at issue then than he is now. The points are the same. Although on the Minister's interpretation designation may not be so much of a threat as it is under the previous Acts, I still believe that in the minds of the public it will be considered so much a threat, just as dangerous to the individual, and just as blighting in its effect. I ask him to consider whether it is not right to say that if, within the period in the Amendment, the land has not been acquired, the owner should, if he wishes, have an opportunity of getting out before the sword falls upon his head.

4.45 p.m.

I hope that the Minister will not listen to the siren voice of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). This point was discussed at considerable length upstairs, though on another Amendment. Although it has been very cleverly switched round by hon. Gentlemen, this point was the subject of discussion for at least an hour and a half or two hours in Committee. I ask my right hon. Friend to stand fast on this point, because of the effect which this Amendment would have upon cities which have to develop areas of land as a whole. This Clause limits the designation to 15 years. In those 15 years, the planning authority will decide what it is to do with this, that or the other piece of land inside the area as a whole. If the proposal, which we are now discussing, to give the owner of the land the right to demand that it be purchased from him at current prices—not at 1939 value—within three months, were put into effect, we should cast away all hope of replanning any of the devastated cities in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the planning authority has to take into consideration how it is to rebuild and redevelop its area from year to year, and because it has to meet its financial responsibilities. It would be impossible to do that with this threat hanging over it. On those grounds, I hope that there will be no response on the part of the Minister to the persuasive voice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Just imagine what that threat would mean in an area where something like 600 or 700 acres of land had to be acquired in one city alone. The city authority makes its plan. Having done so and having designated the use to which that land is to be put, imagine the city having to take over 600 or 700 acres within six months, or three months, in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. It is bad enough having to do it in 15 years. On those grounds, I ask the Minister to stand fast.

I had not the advantage of hearing the arguments put forward in Committee, but I should like to put forward my views on this matter now. I do not propose to deal with the city aspect of this matter, with which I am not so familiar. I desire to say a word or two on this subject in relation to agricultural land. It may seem a strange thing to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but farmers and estate owners require to plan as much as he and other people do. In his remarks, which greatly disappointed me, he said that it was a convenience to a landowner to know that his land was to be taken within ten years. It may be more convenient to know that, than to have no idea at all, but it is extremely inconvenient to have no idea at what time within those 10 years that land will be taken. That puts a farmer, or an occupier, and the estate owner in an extremely difficult position.

If one knows that at some time in the next 10 years, a farm is to be cut in half by a huge road being driven through it, and a large number of buildings erected on it, what is one to do when the roof of the cowshed falls in? Is one to have it repaired or not? What about the position of the tenant of that farm, who knows that sometime within that 10 years he is to lose his farm, and that he will have to look for another one? Farms are not easy to come by these days, and if he has any sense he will start looking for another

Division No. 200]


[4.53 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C.Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Amory, D. HeathooteCrowder, Capt. John E 'Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. RCuthbert, W. N.Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Baldwin, A. E.Digby, S. W.Linstead, H. N.
Baxter, A. BEden, Rt. Hon. ALow, Brig. A. R. W
Beamish, Maj. T. V. HErroll, F. J.Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Birch, NigelFletcher, W. (Bury)Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. WGalbraith, Cmdr. T. DMackeson, Brig. H. R
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Gammans, L. D.Maclay, Hon. J. S
Bullock, Capt. M.Grimston, R. V.MacLeod, J.
Butcher, H. W.Herbert, Sir A. P.Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Challen, C.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountMaitland, Comdr. J. W.
Channon, H.Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)Manningham-Buller, R. E
Clarke, Col. R. S.Howard, Hon. A.Marlowe, A. A. H.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.Jeffreys, General Sir G.Marsden, Capt. A.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.Keeling, E. HMarshall, D. (Bodmin)

farm at once, and will get out. Such a position creates a great degree of uncertainty, and I ask the Minister to look at this question again. It is true that it may be of some convenience to farmers and others to have some indication, but I think that they should have some safeguard. If they are to be put in an impossible position, in which they really cannot carry on, and are quite unable to plan for the future, they should have some remedy, so that they can hand over the land to others, who can take it over and use it forthwith.

Earlier I said a word about the contention of the Minister in seeking to distinguish the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the 1944 Act from those in this Amendment. I now wish to address myself to his observations about the New Towns Act. He sought to distinguish the procedure in the New Towns Act by saying that the owner could only serve a counter notice to purchase if he could show that the land was no longer capable of beneficial use.

In that case our point is doubly reinforced, because the Minister has not succeeded in distinguishing at all the principle he put in the New Towns Act from the principle that we are asking the Committee to put in this Measure.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 226.

Mellor, Sir J.Roberts, Maj P. G. (Ecclesall)Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)Ropner, Col. L.Studholme, H. G.
Morrison, Rt Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Smith, E. P. (Ashford)Walker-Smith, D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.Smithers, Sir WWard, Hon. G. R
Pickthorn, K.Spearman, A. C. M.Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Prescott, StanleyStoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.George,, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Glanville, J. E. (Consett)Noel-Buxton, Ladv
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Goodrich, H. E.Oliver, G. H.
Alpass, J. H.Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)Palmer, A. M. F
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)Parker, J.
Attewell, H. C.Grenfell, D. R.Parkin, B. T.
Austin, H. LewisGrey, C. F.Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Awbery, S. S.Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)Paton, J. (Norwich)
Ayles, W. H.Guy, W. H.Peart, Capt. T. F
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. BHaire, John E. (Wycombe)Piratin, P.
Bacon, Miss A.Hale, LesliePopplewell, E.
Barstow, P. GHall, W. G.Porter, E. (Warrington)
Barton, C.Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.Porter, G. (Leeds)
Battley, J. R.Hannan, W. (Maryhill)Price, M. Philips
Bechervaise, A. E.Herbison, Miss M.Proctor, W. T.
Berry, H.Hewitson, Captain M.Pursey, Cmdr. H
Beswick, F.Hobson, C. R.Ranger, J.
Bing, G. H. C.Holman, P.Rankin, J
Blackburn, A. RHolmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)Rees-Williams, D. R.
Blyton, W. R.House, GReeves, J.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W,)Reid, T. (Swindon)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)Robens, A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)Roberts, Emrys (Merieneth)
Bramall, E. A.Hynd, H. (Hackney. C.)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)Irving, W. J.Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Brown, George (Belper)Jay, D. P. T.Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)Jeger, G. (Winchester)Rogers, C. H. R
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)Scott-Elliot, W.
Bruce, Major D. W. TJones, D. T. (Hartlepools)Sharp, Granville
Buchanan, G.Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Byers, FrankKeenan, W.Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Callaghan, JamesKendall, W. DSilverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Kenyon, C.Simmons, C. J.
Chamberlain, R. AKing, E. MSkeffington, A. M.
Champion, A. J.Kinley, J.Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Chater, D.Kirby, B. VSkinnard, F. W.
Chetwynd, G. R.Lavers, S.Smith, C. (Colchester)
Clitherow, Dr. R.Lee, Miss J (Cannock)Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S.Levy, B. W.Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Collindridge, FLewis, J. (Bolton)Snow, Capt. J. W.
Collins, V. J.Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.Solley, L. J.
Colman, Miss G. MLyne, A. W.Sorensen, R. W
Comyns, Dr. L.McAdam, W.Sparks, J. A.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. GMcAllister, G.Stamford, W
Cove, W. G.McEntee, V. La TStephen, C.
Crawley, AMcGhee, H. G.Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Daggar, GMack, J. D.Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Daines, PMcKay, J. (Wallsend)Stross, Dr. B.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.McLeavy, F.Stubbs, A. E
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)Swingler, S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)Macpherson, T. (Romford)Sylvester, G. O
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)Mainwaring, W. H.Symonds, A. L.
Davies, Harold (Leek)Mallalieu, J. P. W.Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Deer, G.Marshall, F. (Brightside)Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Diamond, J.Medland, H. MThurtle, Ernest
Dodds, N. N.Middleton, Mrs. L.Tiffany, S
Driberg, T. E. NMillington, Wing-Comdr E RTitterington, M. F.
Dumpleton, C. WMitchison, G. RTolley, L.
Dye, S.Monslow, W.Turner-Samuels, M
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Montague, FVernon, Maj. W F
Edelman, M.Moody, A S.Viant, S. P.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Walkden, E.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Evans, John (Ogmore)Moyle, A.Warbey, W N
Farthing, W. J.Nally, W.Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Field, Captain W. J.Naylor, T. EWestwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E)Neal, H. (Claycross)White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Foot, M. MNichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford. N.)Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Wigg, Col. G. E.

Wilkes, L.Wilson, J. H.
Wilkins, W. A.Wise, Major F. JTELLERS FOR THE NOES
Williams, D. J. (Neath)Woods, G. S.Mr. Joseph Henderson
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)Wyatt, W.Mr. Pearson.
Williams, RI Hon. T. (Don Valley)Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.