I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert:
Clause 6 (3) provides for the submission of proposals to the Minister for alterations of the development plans, and the Amendment provides that when such submissions are made, the Minister shall have the power either to designate fresh land, or to cause land which is at present designated to cease to be designated. This matter has been discussed in Committee and I gave an undertaking that I would put down an Amendment of this kind."and any such amendment may in particular provide for securing that any land previously designated by the plan as subject to compulsory acquisition shall cease to be so designated, or that any land not previously so designated shall be so designated."
The first part of this Amendment is something to which we have no objection and according to my recollection of the proceedings in Committee fulfils an undertaking given by the Minister. With regard to the second part a point does arise and that is, that there is power to amend the area designated at any time and the extent of that power does mean that the advantages, if any, of designation are largely diminished. Although it may be of some value in some places to designate so that persons outside the area shall know that they are free from compulsory acquisition, or that the chances of compulsory acquisition are less in their case, this power of designating further land as subject to compulsory acquisition at any time, really destroys the value of designation. I ask the Minister to say—and I think it is a point of some substance—that for the purpose of getting some degree of finality in development plans, the area designated ought to be extended only when the plan is completely reviewed at the five-yearly period, and not at intermediate stages. If it is done at five-yearly periods people who are concerned or who are likely to be affected will be on the look-out and ready to make representations and I think it will result in better plans being made. If it is liable to be done at any moment, it may cause a great deal of uncertainty. Although we welcome the proviso that the area designated can be taken out at any time, I do not think the same applies to extension. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to that point.
As I understand it, this will further increase the expenditure of local authorities, which we were discussing on another Amendment some time back. Will the Minister, or the Attorney-General, say that where an expense of extra designation as suggested in this Amendment is put upon local authorities, it will be published and will be added to the global sum? We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) about what he called over-all planning over 15 years. He said he did not like 10 years. I hope he will support my right hon. Friend, who said you cannot get a plan if the matter is liable to be changed about at any odd time. The hon. Member seemed to think there should be a length of time for planning. He should support my right hon. Friend, because, if you can add any particular land on to designated land, at any time, it does away with over-all planning. I hope, as I say, that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that any extra expenditure brought about by the Minister giving powers to designate will be included in the global sum.
Will the Minister say what effect this Amendment would have on the market for land outside that which is designated in the first place? Surely he does not think this is going to be an advantage. If to powers remain in his hands, those whose business it is to advise on the purchase and sale of land, will have no idea of what kind of advice they can give to their clients. By the elimination of the words at the end of the Amendment the orderly development of land which is the object of this Bill will be much more effective.
I think this is a case where the Minister, in securing very complete powers for himself, has inadvertently run the risk of defeating one of the main objects of his own Bill. The underlying idea by which he has justified his designation proposals is that he hopes thereby to give, not a complete, but some degree of certainty to owners of land who will be affected, and he wishes to secure that object. It clearly has certain advantages, but by putting in these last words he really is destroying all the certainty that the remaining provisions of this part of the Bill are designed to create. If at any moment land, though not hitherto designated, may be designated, I think he will greatly increase what I believe to be one of the main dangers of the Bill.One of the great advantages of the Bill is admittedly that it gives to local and public authorities immense powers for good planning and good development. The great risk of the Bill is that it discourages private owners from carrying out good development. One of the greatest dangers is that, without making certain that the powers which he has given will be used by local authorities, he may, by unduly increasing the risk of the private owner, completely discourage such private development as would, in fact, favour his plan. I quite understand that, when drafting a provision of this kind, the first instinct of the Minister and of the draftsman would be to give every sort of power and to include as a matter of caution these last words to which we are objecting. I believe that by so doing he has inadvertently produced a result, which I gather he does not want, which is very greatly to increase the risk in the minds of private owners and, thereby, to defeat the very object he had in mind in providing for designation.
I can only speak again with the consent of the House. I think the House will agree that it is essential to have flexibility and elasticity in planning. We have suffered in the past from the fact that land has been static. Once a scheme has been made it has been exceedingly difficult to alter it. This Bill provides for periodic reviews The normal thing would be that there would be a review every five years. I gather that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) does not object, on the occasion of these periodic reviews, to the possibility of land being designated afresh. His real objection is that there may be a proposal at any time for the qualification of a plan and, on those occasions, it would be possible to designate land. I agree that there is that possibility.Of course, one can have elasticity carried to an extreme which becomes the negation of planning. I can give the House every possible assurance that proposals for alterations or additions to a development plan will not be encouraged, that; in deed, they will be strongly discouraged in the intervening period, and that only in cases of extreme urgency will such an application be entertained. I can conceive of these cases of emergency. I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the structure of the Bill provides that, for planning purposes, a local authority can only acquire land which has been previously designated under Clause 36. Therefore, if it should turn out that a local planning authority urgently requires some land for its planning functions—land which it has overlooked or which was not designated and without which it would probably be frustrated in carrying out its plans—the only way in which it could acquire that land during the intervening period would be by submitting an alteration of addition to its plan and making a designation order. I feel that we have to provide for this rare case which, as I say, I hope will occur very seldom indeed. It will be strongly discouraged, but if it does occur it ought to be dealt with. Possibly serious consequences would occur if it was not dealt with. That is the reason for providing for the possibility of designating afresh in the intervening period. In regard to the financial point which was made, I would only say that the same considerations apply to an alteration or addition to a development plan as apply to the original development plan, and that the local authority will be required to submit its financial statement in respect of these alterations or additions as they will have done in respect of the original development plan.
May I put one question to the right hon. Gentleman? In the urgent case which he is imagining in justification of the final words of his Amendment, does he say that there will be no powers of acquisition available to the local authority other than those contained in Clause 36?
I said there might not be. There are, of course, provisions under Clause 35, but those are powers in respect of existing statutory purposes. Where the purpose of acquiring the land is purely planning under this Bill, then the only power is contained in Clause 36, and that power can be exercised only in respect of land which has been designated.
As I was one of those who took a leading part in pressing the right hon. Gentleman upstairs in Committee to make an' Amendment of this sort, I should like to say how glad I am to see the first part of the Amendment which he has put on the paper. I am not certain, but I rather think that his attitude was that if we are to have the benefit we must also take the burden of an Amendment of this kind. I do not think that is altogether fair. Obviously the process of undesignating is entirely different from the process of designating. It may be necessary—for reasons which were argued at some length upstairs—to undesignate land at any moment. It may be that the land is developed in such a way that it is clearly taken outside the scope of the plan.In those circumstances we pressed the right hon. Gentleman to take express powers to remove it from the sphere of designation altogether, and that was done. But where it is a question of designating land, I cannot imagine exactly how it could be necessary to require designation urgently for the purpose of complying with the plan. After all, the plan itself is expressed every 5 years, and I find it hard to see how something urgent could crop up which would make it necessary for land to be acquired compulsorily in order to carry out the plan until the five years has expired. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some assurance that he is prepared to insert words into this Amendment at some later stage limiting its use to cases of urgency—I think that is his intention—if he could consider it with a view to putting in some limiting words, so as to show that this power of designation in between the quinquennial periods is only to be used for urgent cases, then I think that our objections would be met. If, however, he does not do so, I hope that we shall carry to a Division the Amendment to the Amendment which is on the Paper and which may be formally moved later.
I am certainly prepared to provide some limiting words so as to indicate that these applications for additions or amendments will be quite exceptional.
In view of that assurance, may I, with the leave of the House, just say that we welcome it? It will assist local authorities to prepare good plans in advance and, in those circumstances, we do not desire to move the Amendment to the Amendment which we have on the Paper.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, at the end, to insert:
What we are trying to provide by this Amendment is that land designated for 10 years, which in fact has not been compulsorily acquired or developed. should after that period be released. Hon. Members who know what it is to live under the threat and the shadow of the Guillotine might have some sympathy with what we are trying to achieve. The Attorney-General spoke a few moments ago about the main reason why he was reducing the period of designation from 15 to 10 years and said he sympathised with people who were under the shadow of designation. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will give consideration to this proposal because the Amendment is put forward from two points of view which should appeal to him. First, it ensures tidy planning and does not allow local authorities to designate here, there and everywhere. If they do that and find that at the end of 10 years they have not used up the land they have designated, they should not be entitled to go on designating land loosely. If the Amendment is accepted, they will be able to choose land wisely. Secondly, we must consider the citizens of this country. We have talked a great deal about local authorities, but we have not really considered the human beings for whom we are legislating—the farmers, owner-occupiers, even wicked landowners, and the owners of small businesses—who must be asked to subject themselves to a perpetual possibility of eviction which the threat of designation may involve. In order to give them that security, which Government Front Bench speakers have repeatedly stated they are prepared to give, this Amendment should be accepted by the Government."(4) Nothing in this Section shall authorise or be deemed to authorise any local planning authority to designate, or the Minister to approve the designation of, any land as subject to compulsory acquisition which has been so subject during the ten consecutive years last preceding the date of the submission of the proposals."
I beg to second the Amendment.The Amendment is designed to prevent designation at To-yearly intervals. The purposes for which designation of land for compulsory acquisition can be made are many and varied. Land can be designated for any kind of public purpose—for acquisition by local authorities, public authorities or statutory undertakers, for redevelopment as a whole in blitzed areas, or in cases of obsolete development. It may be designated—and this is a purpose to which we have taken exception in the past—for any purpose required by the plan. We feel that local authorities will tend to "go big" over this designation, and to play for safety. They will not want to be caught with their trousers down. Suppose a local authority wants to acquire sufficient land to build 10 houses a year above normal requirements, for housing purposes. A borough whose normal requirements for housing purposes would be about 10 houses a year on land which it proposes to develop at say eight houses to the acre, would find its requirements covered by two acres, which over 10 years would mean 20 acres. But I am pretty sure they would go for 50 acres. Right through, they would want to play safe, particularly because, as the Minister told us, under the terms of Clause 36 it will not be possible for a local authority to acquire compulsorily any land which has not been designated for the purpose under the terms of this Clause. What we want to be assured about, therefore, is that this blight of designation —as it has been called by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison)—is not spread too widely and made to hang too permanently over the area. Its effect will be very serious, and will be to prevent modernisation and reconditioning; its effect will be very serious also in the case of agricultural land. It will prevent owners of mixed farms who desire to convert into dairy holdings—in pursuance of the requirements of the Minister of Agriculture, who wants us to produce more milk—from going in for that kind of development. So we want to ensure that there is some check on local authorities. One useful check which we propose in this Amendment is that the power of designation should last for 10 years and that, after that 10-year period, they would have to take the land off the plan for a period of five years before it could go on again. That is really the effect of the Amendment.
This Amendment, in the form in which it is drafted, appears to be misconceived. It seems to be based upon the assumption that if designated land is not in fact acquired within ten years from the date of designation the designation lapses and, if it is desired to continue designation, a proposal for an amendment to the plan would have to be submitted expressly for that pur- pose. That is not the position under the Bill in its present form. Under the Bill as it stands, once land is designated it remains designated unless express measures are taken—as they may be under the Bill—to bring the designation to an end, but the mere lapse of the 10 years does not automatically put an end to the designation. It follows that the Amendment in its present form would not achieve the object which I apprehend hon. Members opposite desire, which is to ensure that designation should automatically come to an end on the expiration of the 10-year period. Perhaps I may deal with the matter as if the Amendment were drafted in a way which would in fact achieve that object.11.15 p.m. Even if it had been so drafted, I am afraid we should not have been able to accept it. Land which is designated is of course included in an estimated 10-year programme of development and acquisition. It may' be that unforeseen delays will occur, and that by the end of the 10-year period the whole of the designated land will not yet have been acquired or developed, but if the power of compulsory purchase were to come to an end automatically and be incapable of renewal after the end of the 10-year period, it would mean that a local authority which had completed perhaps by far the greater part of its development scheme would be left powerless to acquire the remainder and complete the scheme as a whole. I think hon. Members opposite will see that this must be so because one must allow some elasticity and make some provision for the possibility that the programme cannot be carried out absolutely to schedule and in accordance with the time-table. It is essential, in order to provide for that kind of contingency, that if the land is not acquired within the 10 year period, it should remain subject to designation unless steps are taken to remove the designation from it. The Amendment would also have the effect of preventing land which had been designated for one purpose being re-designated for another purpose at the end of the 10 year period. It might happen that land designated as the site of a post office is subsequently not required for that purpose, but is capable of a more appropriate use for, say, the purposes of a public library or some other public authority purpose of that kind. In our view it is desirable that that power should remain, but there are three safeguards which I hope hon. Members opposite will consider adequate, against the possibility that there may be excessive designation, and that land may be exposed for too long to what hon. Members opposite have described, with perhaps a little permissible exaggeration, as the "blight of designation." In the first place, when it is proposed to designate the land, the Minister will have regard to the probability that the land will be acquired within the period of 10 years, and he will only authorise designation in the case where, according to the probabilities as they appear at that time, the land is likely to be taken over within that period. Secondly, on the occasion of each five yearly review the owner will be able to object to the continuance of the designation, and when the local inquiry takes place in regard to the alteration of the plan which may be proposed on the review, he will be able to say that the alterations do not go far enough because they do not involve the "de-designation," if I may use that phrase, of his land when it is obvious that his land is not likely to be acquired for some considerable time. The same applies to the local inquiries on proposals for alterations to the plan which may be put forward between the regular five-yearly periods. Finally, there is what, in my submission is the ample safeguard which any owner of land has in respect of land which is made subject to designation and it is here that hon. Members do perhaps tend to stress too much the effect of designation - upon the existing ownership of the land. Once it is accepted that the owner no longer has any right to development value, his real interest in his land is an interest in its existing use, and designation does not interfere in any way with the existing use of land. If the owner, in the course of time, finds that the beneficial user of his land has become impossible owing to the developments which are taking place under the plan, and if he cannot obtain permission to develop it in some new way, then he can rely upon the provision of Clause 17 of the Bill, and can compel the local authority to purchase his land at that stage. That is the real safeguard which the owner possesses. The moment the existence of these plans, or the existence of the designation, is interfering with his beneficial use of the land, and making it impossible for him to continue beneficial use, he can say to the local authority "You must now acquire it compulsorily." That is his safeguard, and, in those circumstances, we are unable to accept this Amendment.
I think that hon. Members on this side of the House and, indeed, people in the country generally, will find the speech just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman disturbing. It is true, of course, that the words of this Amendment, as he; indicated, were put down on the assumption that the designation period did not continue automatically after the expiration of the 10 year limit prescribed under Clause 5. I am bound to say that it is a comment on the way in which this Bill has been handled in the House, that these misunderstandings can arise. Had this Bill received proper and detailed scrutiny at every stage, this sort of misunderstanding would not now be possible. It is because we have to operate under this unsatisfactory time-table that these misunderstandings arise. The right hon. Gentleman now says that from the words of the Bill, in his opinion—and I think we must take it from him—designation continues beyond that 10 year period, and no express renewal is necessary. In that case, it does seem greatly to weaken the safeguard imported into the Bill by Clause 5 (3, a, ii) and the tenor of the Minister's reply strengthens the fears which have been expressed that the wording of this Bill, and the attitude which Ministers have taken in regard to the various Amendments proposed from this side of the House, will encourage local authorities in a policy of over-insurance, or what my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has described as playing for safety.Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, during the last hour or so, have commended the principle of elasticity, which they say is vital to the Bill. But it seems to me that the principle of elasticity is invoked solely on behalf of the local planning authority. It has been made clear by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen that the actions, the beneficial actions, of the owner of the land are also affected by this; and if the designation is placed too widely on land, it has a corresponding and neces- sarily limiting effect on the people who own the land, The elasticity which is thereby given to the local planning is taken away from the owner of the land. That I consider to be a bad result. Surely it must be the duty of this House to try to restrain this policy of over-insurance which the attitude of the Minister appears to be encouraging on the part of the local planning authority in the designation of land. It is one of the vices of official bureaucracy—and I say these words in no tendentious sense—always to try to enlarge the scope of legislation so as to provide for every possible difficulty in which the administration may be involved. We on this side of the House must have some regard to the position of those who are the owners of the land, and are put under this wider designation, which seems to operate more widely and permanently than we had thought before the Attorney-General made the speech to which we have just listened. He defends his contention by pointing out the various safeguards which, he says, exist for the owners of land who are placed under this continual designation. The suggested safeguard to which he referred was the ability of the owner to avail himself of the provisions of Clause 17 of this Bill. That is to say that in the event of a refusal of permission to carry out such developments or such extension of user he may compel the immediate acquisition of his land. But that safeguard really means this: that if you are placed under sentence of suspended execution you have the remedy of applying to be executed rather earlier than normally would be the case and even at this late hour, and even with the cynical view the right hon. and learned Gentleman might take of the rights of the subject, I think that is just a little too much to ask this House—the traditional custodian of the rights and liberties of the subject—to swallow.
I thank the Attorney-General for dealing with the object of this Amendment on its merits and for not confining himself to its technical defects. I wish to give very brief reasons why the Minister should consider an Amendment of his own, giving some sort of time limit to the designation of land which is not followed up by any acquisition. The reason for that is, I think, fairly clear. Let me deal—this is a slight extension of what my hon. Friend said—with the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said, and I agree with him, that once an owner has no longer any interest in the development value of his land, there is nothing to stop his continuing to enjoy its existing use. But, of course, it is possible very much to improve property within its existing use and I have no doubt that the Government desire that to be done. It is very unlikely that owners of property will continue to expend money improving it even for its existing use, unless they have some sort of security of tenure. If they have no certainty of time in which" they will enjoy the property, that in itself will entail a very great limitation of the prospect of their improving that property within its existing use.The other point, and here I wish particularly to address the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, is the need to facilitate his own administration and his own carrying out of his task. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not wish local authorities to seek to designate much more land than they need, and I am certain that statement was made in absolute good faith and states his intention. It will certainly be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to cut down the amount proposed by local planning authorities for designation, to what he considers to be a proper limit. But is it not very desirable, to facilitate his own administration, that he should have something in the Statute that discourages the local planning authority from even seeking to designate too much? Does the right hon. Gentleman really want to rely exclusively upon his own critical examination of the proposals put up and not to be helped by a big inducement on the face of the Statute limiting the authority to seeking to designate that which is really necessary. For those reasons I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider on his own behalf making an Amendment on the lines of our Amendment but better designed to achieve the object which we sought to attain.
I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has really considered the effect this is going to have on agricultural production. He said it is possible to improve land in its existing use and surely at a time like the present when we are not really so well provided with food it is important that we should develop this sort of land from the point of view of food production to the maximum? The House can imagine how much land is going to be subject to designation, and the effect on market garden land and on developments such as ranges of glasshouses and similar works which will make an immense difference to food production. Anyone who has had any experience of the purchase of land in any area which is ripe for development, will realise that, once it becomes obvious to the occupant that land is soon likely to go into the market, his interest in obtaining maximum produc-
Division No. 208.
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Gates, Maj. E. E.||Nutting, Anthony|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon ||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M|
|Baldwin, A. E||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Prescott, Stanley|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Head, Brig. A. H,||Prior-Palmer, Brig O|
|Beechman, N. A||Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Bennett, Sir P||Hogg, Hon. Q||Rayner, Brig. R|
|Bower, N.||Hollis, M. C.||Renton, D.|
|Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G||Howard, Hon. A||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W||Jarvis, Sir J.||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P G T||Keeling, E. H||Scott, Lord W.|
|Challen, C.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W|
|Channon, H.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Lucas, Major Sir J||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)||Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F C||McKie, J H. (Galloway)||Teeling, William|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N|
|Davidson Viscountess||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F|
|Digby, S. W||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Dodds-Parker, A O||Manningham-Buller, R. E||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Drayson, G B||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Wheatley, Colonel M. J|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)||Maude, J. C||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Mellor, Sir J||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)||Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)||York, C.|
|Gage, C||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S (C'ne'ster)|
|Gammans, L. D.||Neven-Spence, Sir B||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.|
|Adams, W. r. (Hammersmith, South)||Clitherow, Dr. R||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V||Cocks, F. S||Freeman, Peter (Newport)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Coldrick, W.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Collindridge, F.||George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Colman, Miss G. M||Gibson, C. W|
|Attewell, H. C.||Comyns, Dr. L||Gilzean, A.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Cook, T. F.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Gooch, E. G.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Corbel, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N W.)||Gordon-Walker, P. C.|
|Bacon, Miss A||Corlett, Dr. J.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)|
|Baird, J.||Corvedale, Viscount||Grierson, E.|
|Balfour, A.||Cove, W. G.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)|
|Barton, C||Crawley, A||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)|
|Bechervaise, A. E||Daggar, G.||Guy, W. H|
|Benson, G.||Davies, Edward (Burslam)||Hale, Leslie|
|Berry, H.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hall, W. G.|
|Bing, G. H. C||Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col, R,|
|Binns, J.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Blackburn, A. R||Deer, G.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Delargy, H. J||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Diamond, J.||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Dobbie, W.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Driberg, T. E. N.||Hewitson, Captain M.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Holman, P.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Evans, John (Ogmore)||House, G.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Hoy, J.|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T||Ewart, R.||Hubbard, T.|
|Buchanan, G.||Fairhurst, F.||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Burke, W. A.||Farthing, W. J.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Field, Captain W. J.||Janner, B.|
|Carmichael, James||Fletcher, E. C. M. (Islington, E.)||Jager, C. (Winchester)|
|Chamberlain, R. A||Foot, M. M.||Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)|
|Champion, A. J.||Foster, W. (Wigan)||Jones, O, T. (Hartlepools)|
tion from that land drops immediately. So I consider that the remarks we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman sweeping to one side the submissions of my two hon. Friends are not justified. I am satisfied that this will have a much larger effect upon food production than has been suggested.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, '76: Noes, 21O.
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Pargiter, G. A.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Parker, J.||Swingler, S.|
|Keenan, W.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Kenyon, C.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Symonds, A. L.|
|Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E.||Pearson, A.||Taylor, H. B, (Mansfield)|
|Lang, G.||Pearl, Capt. T. F.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Lavers, S.||Piratin, P.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Platts-Mills, J. F. F||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Popplewell, E.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lyne, A. W.||Price, M. Philips||Tiffany, S.|
|McAdam, W.||Proctor, W. T.||Wadsworth, G.|
|McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Pryde, D. J.||Walker, G. H.|
|McKinlay, A S.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Ranger, J.||Watson, W. M.|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Weitzman, D.|
|Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Robens, A.||West, D. G.|
|Medland, H. M.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Middleton, Mrs. L.||Rogers, G. H. R.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Mitchison, G R.||Sargood, R.||Wigg, Col. G. E.|
|Monslow, W.||Scollan, T.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Moody, A. S.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Morley, R.||Sharp, Granville||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)||Williamson, T.|
|Moyle, A.||Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Nally, W.||Shurmer, P.||Wise, Major F. J|
|Neal, H. (Claycross)||Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.||Woodburn, A.|
|Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||Woods, G. S|
|Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Skinnard, F. W.||Wyatt, W.|
|Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Yates, V. F.|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)||Snow, Capt. J. W.||Zilliacus, K.|
|O'Brien, T.||Solley, L. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Soskice, Maj. Sir F||Mr. Michael Stewart and|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Sparks, J. A.||Mr. Simmons.|