Skip to main content

Clause 23—(Compensation Excluded In Certain Cases)

Volume 530: debated on Tuesday 13 July 1954

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

I beg to move, in page 27, line 5, to leave out from "operations," to the end of line 7.

This is really the first of a series of Amendments, to which we shall come in due course, put forward in order to meet points raised in Committee on Clauses 23, 24, 29 and 30. We shall come to a more detailed discussion of the matters under consideration on some of the later Amendments, some put forward by the Government and others in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

What this Amendment does is to remove the automatic exclusion from compensation in the Bill where permission is refused
"for the formation or laying-out of any means of access to a highway."
This extension was criticised in Committee because it appeared to be a provision which could be used unreasonably, and a genuine fear was expressed that a planning authority, or even the Minister, might wish to prevent some building development, and could contrive to do so without liability to compensation, taking the strict letter of the law, merely by refusing permission for any access.

Whatever may be one's view on compensation, that is an abuse of the provision, which was directed only to cases where the development for which permission was sought was the formation of a means of access. Everybody felt that that was wrong. We have made some inquiries, and we have found that such cases are very infrequent. We have not found it possible to devise a form of words which would make the intended limitations of this provision clear, and since it is difficult to deny that the provision is capable of abuse as it stands, and since the danger which we originally sought to meet is very little, it seems that the simplest thing is to delete it altogether.

The Amendment has the additional advantage that it will remove doubt about the precise meaning of "highway" and "service road," and I therefore think the Committee would be well advised to leave this small problem to common sense.

I am already beginning to feel the lack of the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), because the Minister has made for this Amendment a case which is different from that which I made in our earlier discussions. First of all, as I see it, and subject to legal correction, if we withdraw paragraph (b) from subsection (1) of this Clause, dealing with the formation or laying out of any means of access to a highway, it will mean that the Bill, as it will then stand, will provide that if access is refused there will be compensation.

In the majority of cases, access will be given, and that, to my mind, is the negation of planning, particularly on main roads, because if we give direct access to such roads a danger will arise to the main road traffic from other vehicles having unnecessary access to it. In addition, if this provision is withdrawn, it will encourage what many of us who have been associated with planning and with local government have been trying to do away with for years, and what I thought the Government were attempting to stop—ribbon development. The withdrawal of this paragraph will give an emphasis and encouragement to all ribbon developers.

Another point that worries me—and I have seen this sort of thing happen so often—is that a local authority spends a great deal of the nation's money and money from its own local rates in the cutting of a highway, or even on the making of a by-pass, which immediately creates a considerable addition to the value of the land on both sides of that by-pass, and, of course, the landlord picks up that value. What are we going to do now? Quite rightly, a large number of county councils, as the planning authorities—because these new highways are often intended for fast-moving traffic—refuse access to it. The removal of paragraph (b) will mean that, in all these cases in which the county council refuses access to a newly-constructed by-pass, the owner of the adjacent land, who has done nothing to create the extra value of the land through which the by-pass runs, will be entitled to compensation because the county council refuses access to it.

Without some clearer definition of this Amendment, I am afraid that I could not advise my hon. Friends to accept it. If there is a clearer and more precise legal definition which might suggest that what I have said is completely wrong, we shall be ready to revise our opinion.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) that perhaps, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), he has misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment. This was one of the points which I myself raised in Committee on the general issue and also on the allied complication of service roads, and I should like to thank the Minister for meeting the points which I then made.

The fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite are not well founded. It is not the case that, by omitting this paragraph, everybody who is in fact refused access in any circumstances will automatically get compensation. All we are doing is to remove a situation in which automatically they never could get compensation. If, as I hope will happen in the normal case, the refusal is held to be good planning, the owner will not get compensation, but under the Bill he could get compensation only if the refusal were unreasonable.

I think that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman opposite need not fear that we are doing anything terrible. It is just avoiding a possibility, and no more than a possibility, of abuse. If the planning decision is that refusal of access is reasonable, and it is so held, that type of case is certainly left in the Bill as it is now proposed to be amended. There is no automatic compensation—

Could the hon. Gentleman indicate which are these provisions in the Bill?

There is no automatic compensation in this Bill at all for being refused means of access or anything else.

What the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) has just said is not what the right hon. Gentleman said. I understood that the hon. Gentleman's case for this Amendment was on somewhat different grounds. If in fact there is refusal of permission to lay out an access road to a highway, and if the person concerned is now entitled to compensation for it, I suggest to the Minister that the person would be entitled to it in the normal case, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to delete this particular paragraph from the Clause.

4.30 p.m.

Normally the land involved in such an access way being provided to a highway would be land on which the owner did not intend to put any building. Therefore, although he may have been refused permission to construct an access way to the highway, nevertheless there could not be any depreciation in the value of that part of the land concerned, because he never intended to develop it. In fact, if it were a highway, probably at some time he might make it over to the local authority, which would take it, and it would then become public property. Unless the Minister can explain more clearly what his hon. Friend said in relation to this paragraph, I cannot see why in any circumstances compensation should be paid.

If permission were given it would mean that the strip of land concerned would not anyhow have been built upon; it would have provided a facility and a service, we know, but sooner or later the chances are that the local authority would take it over and therefore no compensation would be involved. If, however, refusal on grounds of better planning is given to such a proposal to construct an access way to the highway, it does not depreciate the value of that piece of land anyhow from the point of view of the intentions of the owner.

In fact, he might well make better use of that piece of land: not now having permission to construct a by-way, he may decide to put a structure upon it or upon part of it. That would appreciate the value of the land concerned, and although it would have been appreciated as a result, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to pay him compensation in addition. We ought to be very clear about this and we ought to know in precisely which cases compensation would be paid before we accept this Amendment.

Surely the intention is right that compensation should be claimable for refusal of means of access if that refusal is for nothing else than in connection with means of access. Such refusal might completely nullify the entire use of the land. There is plenty of protection in the following subsection (2, e) over such matters, as for instance, road safety. If a condition is applied relating either to location or design of any means of access—and I stress the word "location"—that does not make compensation claimable. In fact, subsection (2) excludes such a condition from one which draws compensation claim, so there must be plenty of protection there.

The Minister is discussing this Amendment on the basis that the matter is not of substantial importance, but it is of very substantial importance. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr Horobin) expressed regret that my hon. Friend had not the advantage of the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and suggested that my hon. Friend's view of the matter was, therefore, wrong.

This Amendment also alters in a very material way a Clause which, in the opinion of many of us, was already insufficiently comprehensive. Until this Amendment appeared there were only two forms of development specifically stated in the Bill of the many which could have been stated, in respect of which, if permission was refused, no compensation would be payable, and this skating approach of the Minister proposes one of the two approaches.

This matter goes to the very heart of planning because, if we release proper and adequate control of access to the highway, we lose the very kernel of planning policy. We release the risk of ribbon development, of uncontrolled development taking place, and the whole of it aggravated and made more dangerous because compensation may be paid if permission for the development is refused.

But do we release control when we have subsection (2, e), under which conditions can be applied?

Up to a point, because when we asked on what grounds can it be said that this point is already covered, there were replies from the other side of the Committee that it was sufficiently covered by the second subsection of the Clause. However, one finds there that the only relevant provision is that in subsection (2, e) where, admittedly, it is said that no compensation will be paid if permission is granted only on a condition relating to the location or design of any means of access to a highway.

If, however, we refuse permission for the construction or provision of an access altogether, that is not properly described as the imposition of a condition upon the location of the access, nor would any court of law so hold in my view. I do not regard the provisions of subsection (2) as stopping any gap left by the proposed deletion of paragraph (b) from subsection (1) of the Clause. I suggest, therefore, that this is a matter not to be taken lightly, but rather one which diminishes seriously the value of the provisions in Clause 23 (1), and in an important field from the planning point of view of controlling access to highways and of preventing ribbon development and the other social disadvantages which ensue from it.

I hope we shall be able to reach a conclusion on this point, which I think, has been a little exaggerated. It seemed wrong to us that something should be done by a subterfuge. What this Amendment does is to remove from the area of things automatically excluded from compensation this decision of an authority. What does that mean? Surely it means, to take the case of ribbon development, that if we want to stop a house being built, we ought to say honestly, "Stop the house." What I think is undesirable is, first, not to be willing to refuse planning permission for the house in case there might be compensation, and then to try to do it by the devious method of refusing access.

As I ventured to move an Amendment in Committee on this point, and we had a long argument on the effect of this subsection, I should like to make one or two comments. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that it was disreputable to allow a house to be built, and then stop the access to the highway the answer is that he would not do it, because he would not do something which was disreputable, and as the ultimate decision rests with the Ministry one can rest assured that it would be looked at in the proper manner.

Some of my hon. Friends who are listening to the debate attentively may find a little difficulty in deciding the rights and wrongs of this issue, but there is the good rule that they can follow that if the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) asks for a thing, and the right hon. Gentleman grants it, it is wise to oppose it. They would not slip up with that rule very often. I recommend it to them if they find it difficult to follow some of the intricacies of this discussion.

The principle which is trumpeted in the Bill and in the White Paper is that one does not give compensation in cases where to allow development would be a breach of good neighbourliness and the public interest. I attempted to have inserted in the Clause in Committee that there should be taken out of compensation any development that would be a nuisance or a substantial annoyance to persons living in the neighbourhood. That was rejected on the grounds that we already had in the subsection a quite wide enough definition to cover any problems that might arise.

Therefore, having successfully rejected the suggestion that we should have a general, broad category of good neighbourliness excluded, we have precisely the same argument produced by the hon. Member for Oldham, East that if it was bad planning it would be excluded from compensation under provisions in the rest of the Bill. It was difficult to discover what precise terms in the Bill were meant and the hon. Member was not able to allay the doubts raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).

This is a retreat from the great principle which was laid down by the Minister, that there should be no compensation for refusal of planning permission for a development which would be a breach of good neighbourliness and the public interest, because a man had no inherent, fundamental right to compensation and was not allowed to use his land against the interests of his neighbour. I

Division No. 198.]

AYES

[4.45 p.m.

Acland, Sir RichardDeer, G.Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Albu, A. H.Delargy, H. J.Hughes, Clodwyn (Anglesey)
Allen, Arthur (Botworth)Donnelly, D. L.Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)Driberg, T. E. N.Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Awbery, S. S.Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Irvine, A, J. (Edge Hill)
Bacon, Miss AliceEdelman, M.Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Ballour, A.Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)Janner, B.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)Jeger, George (Goole)
Bence, C. R.Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodEvans, Edward (Lowestoft)Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Benson, G.Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Johnson, James (Rugby)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)Fernyhough, E.Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Bing, G. H. C.Fienburgh, W.Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Blackburn, F.Finch, H. J.Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Blenkinsop, A.Follick, M.Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Blyton, W. R.Foot, M. M.Keenan, W.
Boardman, H.Forman, J. C.Kenyon, C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Bowden, H. W.Freeman, Peter (Newport)King, Dr. H. M.
Bowles, F. G.Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.Lawson, G. M.
Brockway, A. F.Gibson, C. W.Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Glanville, JamesLever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Lewis, Arthur
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Greenwood, AnthonyLindgren, G. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Grey, C. F.Logan, D. G.
Burke, W. A.Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)MacColl, J. E.
Burton, Miss F. E.Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)McGovern, J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Griffiths, William (Exchange)McInnes, J.
Callaghan, L. J.Hale, LeslieMcKay, John (Wallsend)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)McLeavy, F.
Champion, A. J.Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Chapman, W. D.Hannan, W.Mainwaring, W. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.Hardy, E. A.Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Clunie, J.Hargreaves, A.Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Coldrick, W.Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)Mann, Mrs. Jean
Collick, P. H.Hastings, S.Manuel, A. C.
Corbet, Mrs. FredaHayman, F. H.Mason, Roy
Cove, W. G.Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)Mayhew, C. P.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)Mellish, R. J.
Crosland, C. A. R.Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Messer, Sir F.
Crossman, R. H. S.Herbison, Miss M.Mikardo, Ian
Daines, P.Hewitson, Capt. M.Mitchison, G. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Hobson, C. R.Monslow, W.
Darling, George. (Hillsborough)Holman, P.Moody, A. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)Holmes, HoraceMorgan, Dr. H. B.W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)Hoy, J. H.Morley, R.
de Freitas, GeoffreyHubbard, T. F.Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) that if one has a development which means the passing of a service road into a main highway, which would interfere with the flow of traffic and cause danger to life and limb and lead to unsightly ribbon development, then if it is the view of the planning authority and the Minister that such a development is a bad development the landlord has no case whatsoever for compensation.

Therefore, this part of the Clause is to some extent a step in that direction. To remove it at this stage would be a deplorable retreat from the principle which was laid down early in the debate.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 268.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)Thornton, E.
Mort, D. L.Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)Timmons, J.
Moyle, A.Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)Tommy, F.
Mulley, F. W.Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)Turner-Samuels, M
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.Ross, WilliamUsborne, H. C.
Oldfield, W. H.Royle, C.Wallace, H. W.
Oliver, G. H.Shackleton, E. A. A.Warbey, W. N.
Orbach, M.Shinwell, Rt. Hon. EWatkins, T. E.
Oswald, T.Short, E. W.Weitzman, D.
Padley, W. E.Shurmer, P. L. E.Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Paget, R. T.Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)Wells, William (Walsall)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)West, D. G.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Skeffington, A. M.Wheeldon, W. E.
Palmer, A. M. FSlater, Mrs. A. (Stoke-on-Trent)White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Pannell, CharlesSlater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Parker, J.Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)Wigg, George
Paton, J.Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Pearson, A.Snow, J. W.Willey, F. T.
Peart, T. F.Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir FrankWilliams, David (Neath)
Plummer, Sir LeslieSparks, J. A.Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Popplewell, E.Steele, T.Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Porter, G.Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.Willis, E. G.
Proctor, W. T.Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Pryde, D. J.Stross, Dr. BarnellWinterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Rankin, JohnSwingler, S. T.Wyatt, W. L.
Reeves, J.Sylvester, G. O.Yates, V. F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Reid, William (Camlachie)Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Rhodes, H.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor

NOES

Aitken, W. T.Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. CHarvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Alport, C. J. M.Crouch, R. F.Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Heath, Edward
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Higgs, J. M. C.
Arbuthnot, JohnDarling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Davidson, ViscountessHinchingbrooke, Viscount
Astor, Hon. J. J.Deedes, W. F.Hirst, Geoffrey
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.Digby, S. WingfieldHolland-Martin, C. J
Baldwin, A. E.Dodds-Parker, A. D.Hollis, M. C.
Banks, Col. C.Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McAHope, Lord John
Barlow, Sir JohnDonner, Sir P. W.Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Beach, Maj. HicksDoughty, C. J. A.Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Drayton, G. B.Horobin, I. M.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Drewe, Sir C.Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Birch, NigelDuthie, W. S.Hurd, A. R.
Bishop, F. P.Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Black, C. W.Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Boothby, Sir R. J. GErroll, F. J.Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M
Bossom, Sir A. C.Fell, A.Iremonger, T. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. AFinlay, GraemeJenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Boyle, Sir EdwardFisher, NigelJennings, Sir Roland
Braine, B. R.Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Braithwaite, Sir GurneyFletcher-Cooke, C.Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. HFord, Mrs. PatriciaJoynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)Fort, R.Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Brooman-White, R. C.Foster, JohnKerr, H. W.
Browne, Jack (Govan)Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)Lambert, Hon. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. TFyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David MaxwellLancaster, Col. C. G.
Bullard, D. G.Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Gammans, L. D.Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Burden, F. F. A.Garner-Evans, E. H.Lindsay, Martin
Butcher, Sir HerbertGeorge, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. LloydLinstead, Sir H. N.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Glover, D.Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Campbell, Sir DavidGodber, J. B.Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Carr, RobertGomme-Duncan, Col. A.Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Cary, Sir RobertGough, C. F. H.Longden, Gilbert
Channon, H.Gower, H. R.Low, A. R. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir WinstonGraham, Sir FergusLucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Grimond, J.Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Cole, NormanHall, John (Wycombe)Macdonald, Sir Peter
Conant, Maj. Sir RogerHare, Hon. J. H.Mackeson, Brig Sir Harry
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertHarris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Cooper-Key, E. M.Harris, Reader (Heston)Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Maclean, Fitzroy

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)Pitt, Miss E. M.Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)Powell, J. EnochStuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)Studholme, H. G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.Summers, G. S.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)Profumo, J. D.Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir ReginaldRaikes, Sir VictorTaylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Marlowe, A. A. H.Ramsden, J. E.Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Marples, A. E.Rayner, Brig. R.Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Redmayne, M.Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Maude, AngusRees-Davies, W. RThompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Maudling, R.Remnant, Hon. P.Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. CRenton, D. L. M.Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Medlicott, Brig. F.Ridsdale, J. E.Tilney, John
Mellor, Sir JohnRobertson, Sir DavidTouche, Sir Gordon
Molson, A. H. E.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)Turner, H. F. L.
Moore, Sir ThomasRobson-Brown, W.Turton, R. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.Roper, Sir HaroldVane, W. M. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.Ropner, Col. Sir LeonardVaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Neave, AireyRussell, R. S.Vosper, D. F.
Nicholls, HarmarRyder, Capt. R. E. D.Wade, D. W.
Nield, Basil (Chester)Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Savory, Prof. Sir DouglasWakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Nugent, G. R. H.Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.Wall, Major Patrick
Nutting, AnthonyScott, R. DonaldWard, Hon. George (Worcester)
Oakshott, H. D.Scott-Milter, Cmdr. R.Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Odey, G. W.Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)Smithers, Peter (Winchester)Watkinson, H. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)Wellwood, W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)Snadden, W. McN.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)Soames, Capt. C.Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Osborne, C.Spearman, A. C. M.Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Page, R. G.Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)Wills, G.
Partridge, E.Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.Stanley, Capt. Hon. RichardWood, Hon. R.
Perkins, Sir RobertStevens, Geoffrey
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Peyton, J. W. W.Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith
Pickthorn, K. W. M.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.and Mr. Kaberry.
Pitman, I. J.Storey, S.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.