Skip to main content

Tenth Schedule—(Enactments Repealed)

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.

Amendment made: In page 97, line 18, column 3, at end, insert:

"and subsection (4) of section one hundred and nineteen."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

Motion for Third Reading.—[ Queen's consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

9.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government
(Mr. Ernest Marples)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I take the advice that has been given so freely and generously by the Opposition and make my remarks as short as possible. There are, however, one or two things which ought to be said.

This has been a very complex Bill and the discussions upon it have necessarily and properly been long, detailed and very careful, but on Third Reading we can have a refreshing change and possibly extricate ourselves from the mass of details which we have been discussing and concentrate for a few minutes on the main themes of the Bill.

Despite the length, importance and difficulty of the Bill, it is in effect a tidying up Measure and is consequential on the major decision taken by the House in 1953. That decision of the House was based on two main principles: first, that the development charge was abolished—I do not think any hon. Member would want to revive it; and secondly, that the £300 million fund was not to be paid out as originally intended in the 1947 Act. This 1954 Bill, therefore, although complicated, is a machinery Bill.

From the 1953 decision the Government had to consider two points. The first was concerned with the past and was the obvious and immediate problem that something had to be done for those people who had suffered from the financial system of the 1947 Act. That is known in jargon as the unscrambling process. That is mostly in Part I of the Bill and deals with the past. Although very complicated, it will only have its effect once and for all; it will not be continued into the future. The second main theme to flow from the 1953 decision was that regarding the future we must provide, in place of the £300 million pay-out in 1953, a basis for compensation for loss of development value as and when loss is sustained.

The loss of development value can be sustained in two ways. First, realisation of the development value can be prevented by planning restriction, and in Part V we deal with development so prevented in the past. In Parts II and IV we deal with development prevented in the future. By the past I mean where restrictions have been imposed between the coming into force of the 1947 Act and of this Bill, and by the future I mean after the coming into force of the Bill. That is the first category.

The second category is where land is acquired compulsorily. In Part III, the provisions deal with the case where local authorities acquire land compulsorily. When working out the compensation details the Government have firmly stuck to one clear principle which was laid down in the White Paper of 1952, that the claims which were established on the £300 million fund have been made the foundation of all the payments made under the Bill. In other words, this is what my right hon. Friend referred to as the Domesday Book.

I do not think that the correctness of the general principle has been seriously contested. There has been vigorous criticism and many hon. Members have brought forward examples of people who have omitted to make a claim as a result of which some hardship may have occurred; but it was generally agreed that it would have been impossible to have reopened claims on a large scale.

As the correctness of that general principle has not been seriously challenged, two things follow. First, the Government are bound to reject admitting to the benefit of the scheme any land where a claim was not made. Secondly, the Government have found it impracticable to modify the basis of assessing development value. There are minor exceptions in the First Schedule, but they would have been made in any case under the old scheme.

Accepting that broad concept, which the House agreed in 1953, it can be said that the Committee upstairs worked extremely patiently, very hard and most effectively. Scarcely any time was wasted by hon. Members on either side, and all hon. Members gave help. That can be proved, because the result is a better Bill. That work has made it a shorter Measure, which is just as important as making it a better Bill. We have lost two Clauses and three Schedules on the way and yet we have introduced new matter and we still have some suggestions in hand which might be dealt with in another place.

I should like to express the thanks of the Government to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who, unfortunately, cannot be present today, and also to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). Perhaps I should also express thanks to the local government experts, if I may call them that without offence, who sit on the benches opposite and who have a great deal of knowledge of this planning procedure from the local authority point of view. They have been constructive and not obstructive.

I think that the House would like me to acknowledge the contribution made by the Attorney-General, who has always been patient in these matters. In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government I think that I can fairly say that his performance throughout has been most courteous. It has been a really magnificent performance for a lay person, dealing with all the intricacies of this procedure.

In Committee upstairs and also on Report I have seen a degree of modesty which I have never known before. This is not so much a tribute to the complexity of the Bill or the modesty of hon. Members. I have never heard so many speeches prefaced by the remark, "I am almost certain that I am wrong, but I should like someone to explain."

Yes, on both sides. In fact, I would go so far as to say that almost every hon. Member who made a contribution to our debates prefaced his remarks with those words. I have been on some Committees where hon. Members have been fairly dogmatic—not Committees composed of the same hon. Members as the Standing Committee on this Bill, of course—and where they have adopted Lord Jessel's dictum, "I am often wrong, but I have never had any doubts; but that cannot be said of this Committee.

Having made reference to the economy of the Clauses and Schedules, perhaps I may refer to the encouragement which has been given to the inclusion in the Bill of some complex and tiresome provisions which originally we thought should be reserved for regulations. There are some matters, procedural, and so on, of a complicated nature, which are made the subject of regulations; but apart from these, the volume of subsidiary legislation which will result from the Bill has been cut to a minimum. The Government intend to continue this process still further, and, if possible, they will suggest means of dispensing with certain sets of regulations for which the Bill still provides, so we hope that the Bill will be streamlined even more.

There is one other point, and that is the awkwardness of what has become known as the two-price system.

There is the two-price system as well as the two-tier system. The two-tier system is functional and administrative, and the two-price system refers to the pay-out financially. Take the case of a man who sells his land privately, and gets a price which is different from the price which he would get if he sold to a public authority. I think that has genuinely worried hon. Members on both sides of the House. A system of this kind cannot be avoided except by the rigid enforcement of some unpopular and unworkable device such as the development charge, and I think the House will agree that it was unpopular.

The hon. Gentleman says, "No," but I can assure him that the letters which my right hon. Friend and I and hon. Members opposite have received from constituents complaining of the development charge are numerous. I can assure him that in the country as a whole there was resentment against the development charge.

Grave apprehensions have been expressed about the inequities to which this system which we have adopted will give rise. But the Government have not heard of any workable alternatives, and they consider that with the safeguards which the Bill provides, the scheme is a great deal more acceptable now than when it was first introduced, and is also more acceptable to a wider range of interests in the country than the straightjacket system which this Bill is intended to replace.

I know that many hon. Members want to say a final word on the Third Reading, and I should like to say only a few words about the time when the Bill may be expected to come into operation. A great deal of correspondence has reached my right hon. Friend and me stating that a large number of people who have been kept waiting for money which would be due to them under Parts I and V of the Bill are very anxious to receive payment. Some cases of severe hardship have been quoted. Some people with claims on the Fund have had to borrow from their banks, pay interest, and have been kept out of the money for a long time.

It is a matter of great regret to the Government that no payments can be made until the Bill has been passed. We should like to mitigate the hardship, but constitutionally it is impossible. The Central Land Board and the Ministry will do their utmost to ensure that applications can be made as soon as the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and payments will be made as soon as the Bill can be brought into effect. The Parliamentary programme is such that the Royal Assent cannot be sought until October or November.

That means, I regret to say, a still further period of waiting for these people who have been kept from their money for so long. The Government will try to ensure that the Bill is brought into effect and that payment will begin before the end of this year, and at this stage that is as far as I can go.

With that very short but, I hope, not unfair summary, I trust that the House will now give the Bill its Third Reading.

9.35 p.m.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that a great amount of invaluable work was done in Committee upstairs. We are most grateful to the Attorney-General, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for N.E. Leicester on this side of the House. Despite these considerations, however, the fact remains that considerable dissatisfaction still exists in regard to this Bill—certainly among hon. Members on this side of the House, and, I strongly suspect, also among hon. Members opposite.

This was not a well thought-out Bill. The Government decided to dismantle the provisions of the 1947 Act and an unscrambling operation was set in motion. One might have thought that they were dealing with road haulage. The destroyers, however, had no coherent alternative to offer. The consequences are manifest. First, the Bill is barely recognisable as the Measure we first saw. The Fourth, Sixth and Eighth Schedules have gone, some into the body of the animal and some elsewhere. If the Bill had been as well thought out as Parliament is entitled to expect, it would not have had to be altered in the way it has been at this very late stage.

A summary of the whole story is to be found in the Report of the Standing Committee. The Minister, in what was a revised explanation of the effect of Clause 10, is reported to have remarked:
"I got it wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 11th May, 1954; c. 242.]
That is what is on the record. It is not an unkind reflection upon the Minister to draw attention to that fact, because an archangel would have got it, wrong. Another example of the way in which this matter has been rushed through is the treatment which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) received in regard to Clause 19. I shall not embarrass him by seeking to diagnose further what I assume to be his opinion on that point, but what took place was a consequence of the matter not having been satisfactorily considered.

The policy of the Bill has got out of the control of Parliament and into the hands of the Department. This is an example of what we all know to be happening in a dangerously wide field. Why has this occurred? It is because the Government have told the Department concerned what is their general policy and objective, and have given the Department an outline of their purposes.

The Department has thereupon proceeded to translate those purposes into words which can be put down upon paper. The moment it makes that attempt unforeseen difficulties arise and unexpected complexities occur. Every room in the edifice is found to need four anterooms, and at the end one is confronted with a labyrinth. The only people who can begin to find their way through that labyrinth are the officials of the Department. Unless the position is carefully watched, power slips out of the hands of the House of Commons and into the hands of the Department in just that fashion. Consideration by this House has much too nearly been an Operation Rubber Stamp.

The Bill, rather curiously, indirectly recognises the fact that finance is the key to good town and country planning. If the planning authorities are always looking over their shoulders to ascertain whether they can afford the cost of compensating for refusals of obviously undesirable development, that ruins planning. That is recognised by all concerned. There is only one way of solving that problem, and it is not the method adopted by the Bill. Planning restrictions and the planning of development can have the effect of diminishing values of some landlords, but they also have the effect of increasing values of other landlords, and it is in this combination of compensation with betterment that the solution of this problem is to be found. It is very much regretted, certainly on this side of the House, that that is not the solution that has been adopted by the Government. It is in that combination of compensation with betterment that good planning can flourish, because it is freed thereby from the financial handicap.

What is the inevitable consequence, illustrated by the Bill, of settling the financial provisions so as to attempt to avoid hindering planning but without calling betterment in aid? I suggest that the result of the attempt being made to recognise the importance of financial provisions to planning but of refusing to make any concession to the principle of betterment, is to put into effect a system of compensation which works out iniquitously unfairly as between different owners of property. We are not in favour of that. It is not part of the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House to encourage iniquitously unfair treatment as between different classes of property owners. Far be it from me to suggest that it is any part of our policy to do that.

Yet that is happening in this Bill. Some owners of property will come well out of this, and some ill, but as between them there will be a remarkable lack of equity and fairness, and I regard that as being the consequence of the recognition, on the one hand, of the importance of the financial provisions to make planning effective and, on the other, the refusal to give any recognition to the principle of betterment.

The Bill revives the difficulties that followed from the 1944 Act. We have as a consequence of this Bill two scales of values operating concurrently, the compulsory acquisition price and the open market price. The 1947 Act attempted—and, whatever may be said, it was a rather noble and distinguished attempt, in the opinion of many of us—to equate the existing use value of the land and the open market value, and many of us on this side still think that if the Central Land Board had lived up to our hopes and expectations that could have been done and put into effect. The existing use value and the open market value of the land could have been the same. The floating value, the unpredictable element which makes it difficult to equate over a period the open market price and the compulsory purchase price, was paid for once for all under Part VI of the 1947 Act. That disturbing unbalancing element was got rid of.

Now this Bill is beginning, as I say, all over again to revive the difficulties which were recognised to be inherent in the 1944 Act of two concurrent and different scales of values, the one in the open market and the one for compulsory purchase. What the Minister is doing is to peg valuation for the purpose of compulsory purchase at the 1947 values. He is overlooking or avoiding the fact that that valuation was based on development values as they existed in 1947.

The development charge on the one hand and the global sum on the other hand were the keys to the 1947 Act. What the Government have done is to do away with the development charge but to perpetuate the importance of the global sum, at least in the sense that they have used as their peg the development value of land which was represented by the global sum set up under the 1947 Act.

I think they have gone the wrong way about it. I think it would have been better, if they intended to abandon the 1947 Act—and we object to them doing that—had they done it the other way round. They should have retained some development charge—something less than 100 per cent.—to be levied on grants of permission and then used the money coming in from the charge to create a fund which would have paid compensation at open market prices and avoided the gap which we are all anxious to avoid between the open market price and the compulsory purchase price of land. Grants of permission are going to be very valuable things to possess.

They have failed to do that. We believe that they have followed the wrong course. Local authorities, estate agents, property owners and many others will be trying to understand the Bill. In the interests of the good government of the country, it is very desirable that they should be able to understand it and quite wrong that their time and energies should be wasted hour after hour in trying to discover what is meant and what is the law. I believe that it is very important that the provisions of a Bill of this character should be clear, but I believe that these local authorities and estate agents, and others of whom I have spoken, will not find them clear. Their verdict will be the verdict of the Minister which I quoted earlier in my speech—"He has got it wrong."

9.47 p.m.

I hope that the House will bear me for a few minutes at this late stage, for I was one of those who attempted to play some small part in moulding the policy and form of the Bill. One thing at any rate will be agreed—that the Bill is not as simple as it looks. It is too late in the day for me to go into great detail even of the major points which still remain doubtful and difficult, and I will refer to only three of them.

I am afraid it is too late to have anything done about the first of them, but I regret—and here I find myself to a certain extent in agreement with the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)—that some of the unfairnesses arising from de mininds and late claims, for for example, have not been dealt with by some kind of escape Clause. I realise the Minister's difficulties and it is no use going over the point now, but the unfairnesses remain.

Secondly, there is a point which I hope may still be dealt with in another place—the anxieties which apply to trustees of charitable operational land in relation to refusal of planning permission. I have had some experience of this and it seems to me that they are placed in a worse position than that of ordinary owners.

Thirdly, I merely record this point at this stage because it may be considered in another place, where so many high legal luminaries exist. It is a thing which does not divide us at all as to its intention but which is vital to the structure of the Bill. I am quite satisfied about the intention. I am not a lawyer and I have no reason to doubt it, but it means not what the Minister says that it means but what the judges find that it means. The whole working of the Bill depends on the linkage between Clauses 23, 24 and 29 and what used to be the Sixth Schedule, and I am quite satisfied, as the Minister said, that the Bill does not mean what it appears to mean and that the linkage exists. It would be an absolute disaster if the lawyers were to discover that the intention is not carried out, and I hope that in another place very careful scrutiny will be paid to that point.

There are two major issues on which I think we must say a word on this side of the House before we part with the Bill. The first has already been referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary—the difference between the value of land as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and when it is C.P.O.'d. I am quite sure that this Bill will not endure indefinitely, but I do not think that that is a fundamental criticism. I think that a search for finality in this matter is probably a mistake. The fact, however, does remain, that in the course of time, and not a very long time, I believe that these differences will become intolerable.

I am not thinking primarily of the major difference in the value of money. That can be dealt with in rough and ready fashion in the same way as war damage was dealt with. The mere passage of time as between neighbouring and quite distinguishable pieces of land will, I think, lead to some changes in the future. The Bill is, however, a greater improvement on what we found, and we must just let it work its course.

The second thing which I think it is necessary to point out from this side of the House is somewhat newer. I think that some people will be disappointed in what this Bill does. It is ironical and characteristic of the way we do things in this country that, almost without exception, it has been a Conservative Government which has brought us extremely near, if not all the way, to town planning without compensation. It is very peculiar, but I think that the amount of compensation that will be paid out under our town planning procedure when this Bill becomes law will be less than many people imagine. So far from it being a bonus to landlords it will be, in many cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "A shock."]—yes, a shock. I am not at all certain, although I speak consistently for the rights of owners, that this is as serious an objection as may be supposed.

I do not think that the Minister would disagree with this summary of what is likely to come out of this great operation in which he has been involved ever since we decided to bring to an end the 1947 Act. He has not really been producing, or trying to produce, a system which restores to owners the development value of their land. What he has been doing—and I hope successfully—is to restore that much of it as is necessary to produce a free market in land. That being so, I think that he would agree that his approach to this problem is not so much a calculation of compensation for stopping people from doing things, as an honest attempt which is being made by this Bill to find for every piece of land some useful development, which can be done without doing damage to neighbours and to the public interest, and allowing that to be done rather than paying someone for not allowing it to be done.

That will be the reason, I think, why compensation will be very much less under the new system than some people imagine, because the whole basis of the Bill is to recreate a free market and, so far as possible, to enable development to take place. Although I think that the Minister has made an honest, and, on the whole, successful attempt to meet it, the main anxiety felt by hon. Members on these benches about a system which gets so near to town planning without compensation is, of course, to protect owners from being "Cricheled. To "Crichel" is to steal a man's property by a process of law by a series of conspiracies by Government Departments to abuse their powers. On the whole, I think that the Minister has attempted to balance the scales evenly and by the Amendments which have been accepted today he has gone even further than hitherto.

Though I say it with considerable hesitation, I think that my right hon. Friend is right in saying, in effect, to the owners of property, that planning and control of land use has now gone so far in this country that it is useless to rely on trying to build up little bits of protection here and there. We must act on the assumption and try to make it work so that, by and large, planning control will be reasonable. That is the only basis upon which this Bill can work. We must hope that it will work.

This Bill is, in my opinion, a genuine attempt to recreate conditions in which free inter-buying and selling of land, and the development of land, can flourish; as against a system which, as we all know—there is no need to go back over it at this late stage—had tended to make dealing in land almost impossible without the introduction, or threat of it, of compulsory purchase at one stage or another.

While no one could feel that this is either a perfect or permanent settlement, it is, in my submission, a genuine attempt to deal with a difficulty which we found, and an improvement on the situation, which ought to work quite reasonably—given a reasonable amount of good will on both sides—for at any rate a substantial period, and for as long as we need to consider tonight.

9.58 p.m.

I believe it fair to say that this Bill, which started as an ugly duckling which no one liked, has hardly been made beautiful by its progress through its various stages or by the extensive Amendments which have been made to it. I still cannot find anyone either in the profession or in local government who is prepared to say that he understands what is done by this Measure; and I think it is bound to lead to difficulties when, in the years ahead, attempts are made to make it work.

The real trouble is that the Government have been engaged in trying to unscramble an Act of Parliament by which an endeavour was made to give back to the people that value which they themselves have created. I do not think that that process has been a success. I considered that the £300 million compensation to landowners was a £300 million ransome and I said so when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading. What the Government have done in this Bill is to abolish that Section of the 1947 Act, but they have left the £300 million to be shared out, not at any definite date, but as and when development takes place.

It has always seemed to me that it is difficult to make anything good of something which is completely unmoral. Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) it is unmoral that values which the community have created should be taken for the benefit of private individuals, which is what is being attempted by this Bill. That is why I say it is so difficult, and I doubt very much whether it will work for very long without very great pressure being brought to bear by the local authorities in this country for substantial changes, because they in the main will have to work it.

I am all the more convinced that that will happen because it is obviously the general policy of this Government to get rid of all kinds of controls. One Minister has boasted about abolishing his Department and putting himself out of a job, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government is busily engaged in breaking the effective controls of town planning. If my information is correct, he is breaking up the organisation which was built up to administer town planning in this country, something which nobody is prepared to say is not vitally necessary in the interests of our economic and social development.

I hope the views I am expressing are wrong, but it seems to me that not only are we engaged in unscrambling the 1947 Act, but it looks as if we are doing the same thing with the organisation which has been shown to be necessary to administer normal town planning powers. I am told that the original organisations are being broken up, and that one region has already gone. That kind of thing will inevitably drive us back in town planning matters to the chaos which existed before the war. Those of us then interested in local government with some responsibility for town planning, found it extremely difficult effectively to carry out the then town planning legislation.

Town planning legislation is on the Statute Book in order that the towns in which we live should be properly planned and made fit for human beings. It is because I am afraid that the Bill will make the position worse, and because I am quite sure it is wrong to hand back to the people who have not created it the value in land equivalent to £300 million, that I shall have great pleasure in voting against it.

10.4 p.m.

After the Second Reading, a lengthy Committee stage and the Report stage this afternoon, on Third Reading there is little that can be said which is new, and so I shall be very brief. It is merely a matter of principle between the two sides of the House. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing the best they can for their landlord friends. They are giving back to them values in land development which the community created. The 1947 Act nationalised the future land values. But this Bill gives back to a privileged community the benefit which comes from increased land values which the community create. No amount of talking will convince hon. Members opposite to the contrary, nor shall we be convinced that that is not so. Therefore, the really effective thing to do is to register our vote in the Division Lobby against the Bill.

We do not like the Bill, and we have not liked it from the beginning. We agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that, after detailed criticism and consideration in Committee, a bad Bill has been slightly improved. I agree that finance and planning are tied together and that this Bill can only work if landlords get compensation. I cannot see that happening, and therefore this Bill will not work. So, in the interests of the House, I think we should now proceed to vote on the Third Reading.

10.5 p.m.

I shall not keep the House more than a few moments, but first I want to thank those Members of the Committee who served through what sometimes seemed to be long and tedious proceedings for having made the Committee what, in the spirit of the House of Commons, a Committee should be. When we pass the Second Reading of a Bill, whether we like it or not, the House accepts the principles in it. Our Committee worked on that basis and did its best to improve the terms of the Bill within the general principles accepted by the House on Second Reading. I am also grateful for the courtesy shown me and the help given by all Members of the Committee, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who is not with us today, but who was a most admirable leader of the party opposite throughout our proceedings.

The White Paper of 1952 set out what we were trying to do and I think I can say that we have kept to it with great sincerity. We wanted to abolish the development charge and we have abolished it. We wanted to abandon the great takeover bid and we have got rid of that. At the same time we wished to preserve the power and strength of planning and I claim that we have done that. The development charge was a hateful tax and we shall see whether its restoration will play a part in the election policy of the party opposite.

As for the idea that the State ownership of development value had some benefit either for the individual or for the local authority, never was there any greater error. With the private landlord one might have a chance, he might be indolent or ill-informed; but with the bureaucrat who owns all the potentialities of development, one has no chance at all. Every single penny will be exacted, whether from an individual or a local authority. We have got rid of that too.

We heard today those delicious phrases—I remember them from my youth—floating value, betterment and all the old Henry George stuff re-created; all the vague, useless academic arguments that have never done any good, which have brought many great Ministers to trouble but no Ministers to great success. I hope, therefore, that those arguments will go on being part of the stock-in-trade of the party opposite. The nationalisation of development rights means, alas, the sterilisation of land.

What we have tried to do is to maintain the principle that if the public interest is not in any way injured, a man may do what he likes with his own. I believe that to be right. If, however, the public interest requires either that he should not be allowed to develop his land in a particular way or that his land should be compulsorily acquired, then he should have to surrender his interest to the major interest of the local authority or of society as a whole.

I do not think that the possessing classes, the owners of land—which means a lot of small people as well as big people—will gain greatly under the provisions of this Bill. We are going to pay at 1947 values. The only difference is that the party opposite would pay all the claims at once and we shall only pay when it is necessary. We acknowledge the problem of the late claims—it may be unfair to many people—the problem of the de minimis question. We have accepted the principle of good neighbourliness so that many owners are excluded from compen

Division No. 201.]

AYES

[10.10 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.Crouch, R. F.Hirst, Geoffrey
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Holland-Martin, C. J.
Alport, C. J. M.Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Hollis, M. C.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Holt, A. F.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Davidson, ViscountessHope, Lord John
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.De la Bére, Sir RupertHopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Arbuthnot, JohnDeedes, W. F.Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Digby, S. WingfieldHorobin, I. M.
Astor, Hon. J. J.Dodos-Parker, A. D.Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. MDonaldson, Cmdr, c. E. McAHoward, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Baldwin, A. E.Dormer. Sir P. W.Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Banks, Col. C.Doughty, C. J. A.Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Barber, AnthonyDouglas-Hamilton, Lord MalcolmHulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Barlow, Sir JohnDrayson, G. B.Hurd, A. R.
Baxter, Sir BeverleyDugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Beach, Maj. HicksDuncan, Capt. J. A. LHutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Duthie, W. S.Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.Hylton-Foster, H. B. H
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Iremonger, T. L.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Erroll, F. J.Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Birch, NigelFell, A.Jennings, Sir Roland
Bishop, F. P.Finlay, GraemeJohnson, Eric (Blackley)
Black, C. W.Fisher, NigelJohnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Boothby, Sir R. J. GFleetwood-Hesketh, R. FJones, A. (Hall Green)
Bossom, Sir A. C.Fletcher-Cooke, C.Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Bowen, E. R.Ford, Mrs. PatriciaKaberry, D.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.Fort R.Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Boyle, Sir EdwardFoster, JohnKerr, H. W.
Braine, B. R.Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)Lambert, Hon. G.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David MaxwellLambton, Viscount
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Sir GurneyGalbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollock)Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.Galbraith, T. G. (Hillhead)Leather, E. H. C.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)Gammans, L. D.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Brooman-White, R. C.Garner-Evans, E. H.Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Browne, Jack (Govan)George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. LloydLennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. GT.Glover, D.Linstead, Sir H. N.
Bullard, D. G.Godber, J. B.Llewellyn, D. T.
Bullus, Wins Commander E. EGomme-Duncan, Col. ALloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Burden, F. F. A.Gough, C. F. H.Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Butcher, Sir HerbertGower, H. R.Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Graham, Sir FergusLockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Campbell, Sir DavidGrimond, J.Longden, Gilbert
Carr, RobertGrimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)Low, A. R. W.
Cary, Sir RobertGrimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Channon, H.Hall, John (Wycombe)Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir WinstonHare, Hon. J. H.Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Macdonald, Sir Peter
Cole, NormanHarvey-Watt, Sir GeorgeMackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Colegate, W. A.Head, Rt Hon. A. H.Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Conant, Maj. Sir RogerHeald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelMaclay, Rt. Hon. John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertHeath, EdwardMaclean, Fitzroy
Cooper-Key, E. M.Henderson, John (Cathcart)Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Higgs, J. M. C.MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. CHill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. EHinchingbrooke, ViscountMacpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

sation. Why have we done it? Not, as the hon. Gentleman said, because we want to give benefit to our landlord friends. That is all right on the hustings, but it is not good enough here.

It is because we think that upon development being made possible depends the hope of this country to recover and develop its strength and create the wealth upon which rest the hopes and happiness of all our people. This Bill is not a charter for the landlord, it is a charter for the developer.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 228.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Ho. Sir ReginaldPrior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.Summers, G. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.Profumo, J. D.Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Marples, A. E.Raikes, Sir VictorTaylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Ramsden, J. E.Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Maude, AngusRayner, Brig. RTeeling, W.
Maudling, R.Redmayne, M.Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. CRees-Davies, w. RThomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Medlicott, Brig. F.Remnant, Hon. P.Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Mellor, Sir JohnRenton, D. L. M.Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Molson, A. H. E.Ridsdale, J. E.Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir WallerRoberts, Peter (Heeley)Tilney, John
Moore, Sir ThomasRobertson, Sir DavidTouche, Sir Gordon
Morrison, John (Salisbury)Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)Turner, H. F. L.
Mott-Radclyffe, c. E.Robson-Brown, W.Turton, R. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)Tweedsmuir, Lady
Neave, AireyRoper, Sir HaroldVane, W. M. F.
Nicholls, HarmarRopner, Col. Sir LeonardVaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Nield, Basil (Chester)Russell, R. S.Vosper, D. F.
Noble, Comdr A. H. P.Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.Wade, D. W
Nugent, G. R. H.Savory, Prof. Sir DouglasWakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Nutting, AnthonySchofield, Lt.-Col. W.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Oakshott, H. O.Scott, R. DonaldWalker-Smith, D. C.
Odey, G. W.Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.Wall, Major Patrick
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.Smithers, Peter (Winchester)Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)Watkinson, H. A.
Orr-Ewing.Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)Snadden, W. McN.Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Osborne, C.Soames, Capt. C-Wellwood, W.
Page, R. G.Spearman, A. C. M.Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O-Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Perkins, Sir RobertSpens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Pelo, Brig. C. H. M.Stanley, Capt. Hon. RichardWilliams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Peyton, J. W. W.Stevens, GeoffreyWills, G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Pilkington, Capt. R. AStewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)Wood, Hon. R.
Pitman, I. J.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Pitt, Miss E. M.Storey, S.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Powell, J. EnochStrauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

NOES

Acland, Sir RichardDaines, P.Hastings, S.
Adams, RichardDalton, Rt. Hon. H.Hayman, F. H.
Albu, A. H.Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Davies, Harold (Leek)Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R-Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)Herbison, Miss M.
Awbery, S. S.de Freitas, GeoffreyHewitson, Capt. M.
Bacon, Miss AliceDeer, G.Hobson, C. R.
Baird, J.Delargy, H. J.Holman, P.
Balfour, A.Dodds, N. N.Holmes, Horace
Bartley, P.Driberg, T. E. N.Hoy, J. H.
Bence, C. R-Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)Hubbard, T. F.
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodEdwards Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Benson, G.Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Bing, G. H. C.Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Blackburn, F.Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Blenkinsop, A.Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Blyton, W. R.Fernyhough, E.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Boardman, H.Fienburgh, W.Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.Finch, H. J.Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Bowden, H. W.Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethFollick, M.Janner, B.
Brockway, A. F.Foot, M. M.Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Forman, J. C.Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Johnson, James (Rugby)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Freeman, Peter (Newport)Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Gibson, C. W.Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Burke, W. A.Glanville, JamesJones, Jack (Rotherham)
Burton, Miss F. E.Gooch, E. G.Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Keenan, W.
Callaghan, L. J.Greenwood, AnthonyKenyon, C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Grey, C. F.Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Champion, A. J.Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)King, Dr. H. M.
Chetwynd, G. R.Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Lawson, G. M.
Clunie, J.Griffiths, William (Exchange)Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Coldrick, W.Hale, LeslieLever, Harold (Cheetham)
Collick, P. H.Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Corbet, Mrs. FredaHall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Lindgren, G. S.
Cove, W. G.Hamilton, W. W.Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Hannan, W.Logan, D. G
Cros'and, C. A, R.Hargreaves, A.MacColl, J. E.
Crossman, R. H. S.Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)McGovern, J

McInnes, J.Plummer, Sir LeslieSylvester, G. O.
McKay, John (Wallsend)Porter, G.Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
McLeavy, F.Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)Taylor, John (West Lothian)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mainwaring, W. H.Proctor, W. T.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mann, Mrs. JeanPryde, D. J.Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Manuel, A. C.Pursey, Cmdr. HThornton, E.
Mayhew, C. P.Rankin, JohnTimmons, J.
Mellish, R. J.Reeves, J.Turner-Samuels, M
Mikardo, IanReid, Thomas (Swindon)Usborne, H. C.
Mitchison, G. RReid, William (Camlachie)Wallace, H. W.
Monslow, W.Rhodes, H.Warbey, W. N.
Moody, A. S.Richards, R.Watkins, T. E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. WRobens, Rt. Hon. A.Weitzman, D.
Morley, R,Roberts, Albert (Normanton)Wells, William (Walsall)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)West, D. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)Wheeldon, W. E.
Mort, D. L.Ross, WilliamWhite, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Moyle, A.Shackleton, E. A. AWhiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Mulley, F. W.Short, E. W.Wigg, George
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. JShurmer, P. L. E.Wilkins, W. A.
Oldfield, W. H.Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)Willey, F. T.
Oliver, G. HSkeffington, A. M.Williams, David (Neath)
Orbach, M.Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Oswald, T.Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Padley, W. E.Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Paget, R. T.Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)Willis, E. G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)Snow, J. W.Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Sorensen, R. W.Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Palmer, A. M. F.Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir FrankWinterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Pannell, CharlesSparks, J. A.Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Pargiter, G. A.Steele, T.Yates, V. F.
Parker, J.Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. RYounger, Rt. Hon. K.
Paton, J.Stross, Dr. Barnett
Pearson, ASummerskill, Rt. Hon. ETELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Peart, T. FSwingler, S. TMr. Popplewell and
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.