HC Deb 07 June 1932 vol 266 cc1791-847

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 5, line 26, to leave out Subsection (2).—[Mr. Greenwood.]

After the word "resolution," to insert the words: applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid."—[Mr. Price.]

In line 35, after the word "expedient," to insert the words: or that there is danger that gradual changes may take place in the use of the_ land within the area of the scheme or in the character of any buildings thereon of such nature and to such extent as would in the course of time be liable to prejudice existing property or its amenities or satisfactory redevelopment of the land.

In line 40, to leave out paragraph (b).

In page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert the words: or that there is danger that from time to time the erection of buildings or change in use of existing buildings may take place to such an extent as would be liable to injure rural amenities."—[Sir F. Fremantle.


Before I call on the right hon. Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood) to move his Amendment, I would refer to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) and: to the three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). They all raise the question of built-up areas under Subsection (2). I think it might be convenient to the Committee if we had a general Debate on the first Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman on the whole principle of the Sub-section, reserving the right of hon. Members to move and divide on their Amendments if they wish to do so subsequently.


I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (2).

I am sure that your suggestion, Captain Bourne, will meet with the approval of the Committee. I move to leave out Sub-section (2) because since the Bill left the House after its Second Reading, what many people regard as a very substantial change has been made in the Bill. Clause 6 as it now appears before the Committee is different from Clause 6 as it left the House on Second Reading. It has, in fact, been restricted in its scope. That I regard as being a most serious Amendment to the Bill, and it is right that before we pass from this subject the Committee should either reaffirm its old decision, or quite openly and de- liberately scrap its old decision and endorse the change which was made in Committee upstairs. The Bill of 1931 empowered, under conditions laid down, the planning of all land, both built-up areas and undeveloped land not covered by previous legislation. That Bill, as many hon. Members will remember, got an unopposed Second Reading, and, so far as the scope of the Bill was concerned, it emerged from the Committee unimpaired. Had it been possible to bring the Bill back on the Report stage to that House of Commons, I have not the slightest doubt myself that the House would have re-affirmed its decision to include all land within the scope of town planning schemes. I say that in the presence of the present Postmaster-General, who, with his accustomed modesty, is sitting far below the Gangway, and who knows that that would have been the case. And that was so, I suppose, because in nearly a score of cases Parliament, in local Acts, has given local authorities powers which imposed no limitation whatever on the kind of land which they should be allowed to plan.

The present Bill is substantially the Bill as it was left by the Labour Government with the Amendments which were made in Committee. It arrived in this House as a legacy from the late Parliament as a Bill which was an agreed Bill. I wish the Postmaster-General would come a little further into the House, because he could bear me out. For the second time, the principles were accepted. There was no Division. It is true that on the Second Reading sparrows twittered. But they had not the courage to challenge a Division. The general sense of the House was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and the major principle of the Bill was that town planning should now be able to cover all land, irrespective of whether it was developed or not built-upon. Unfortunately, as has been observed by a body which is interested in this question—the National Housing and Town Planning Council—what it calls "a strong and well-organised opposition to its main principles" manifested itself at an early stage in Standing Committee. Certain Members of the Committee prominently occupying the third bench above the Gangway were Members of the Committee last year. If they were not restrained then, they were at least overwhelmed and out-voted by the votes of their more enlightened colleagues in the Conservative party some of whom are now in the House, including, as I must remark again, the Postmaster-General himself. Not being satisfied, they have, quite rightly, returned to the charge, and deliberately sought to restrict the scope of the Bill.

I would point out to the Committee that, prior to the introduction of the original Bill, there had been prolonged consultations with practically every kind of organisation and every kind of interests affected by it, not merely the local authorities, but bodies representing the landowners and the land agents, bodies interested in town planning and professional organisations. It may be that there was not absolutely universal agreement, but at least there was among all those varied interests who were concerned, general agreement as regards the scope which town and country planning should in future take, and the views of those people have not altered. Hon. Members who have been responsible for this very substantial change in the Bill have no real representative capacity in this matter. I thought, perhaps, that they might be speaking for certain landed interests, but I find that when the Minister three months ago received a. deputation on this question, neither the Land Agents' Society nor the Central Landowners' Association, who represent a considerable majority of landowners, had suggested any alteration to Clause 6 to curtail the scope of planning.

It is clear, therefore, that recalcitrant supporters of the National Government cannot claim to represent the organised landed interests of this country, and, even more so, they cannot claim to represent the views of local authorities and regional and town planning authorities in this country. It is equally certain that they cannot claim to represent the views of bodies like the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other bodies of that kind which have done so much to promote a healthy interest in this subject. Indeed, they speak only for themselves. At the best, they speak for a little knot of Diehard Tories. They can claim no authority from their own party. They can claim no authority from the Liberal party. They can claim no authority from any group represented in the National Government.


As a matter of accuracy, may I point out that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) represents the Diehard Whigs—not Tories.


I believe that is a distinction that we may have to re-introduce into the currency of politics to-day, but we do not want to quarrel about terms. Let us call it a Diehard group. They do represent a Diehard group, not representative of the general body of Conservative opinion.


The right hon. Gentleman might tell us whom he represents.


On this matter, I happen to represent enlightened public opinion. I have already explained to the hon. and learned Member that outside this House there are local authorities who, without exception, support the Bill as introduced. Every professional organisation, every propagandist organisation interested in this matter, the Central Landowners' Association, and the land agents have not asked for this Amendment. I have a right to say that I do represent enlightened public opinion in this matter. I should be sorry to pretend to represent that little group of Diehards who have forced their will upon the Minister. The Minister has had time to reflect about this matter. He introduced the Bill so that it should apply to all land, but he had to capitulate to this little group of backwoodsmen who represent nobody but themselves.

Marquess of HARTINGTON

On a point of Order, is an hon. Member entitled to suggest that any hon. Member represents anyone except his own constituents?


I understood the right hon. Member to say that certain hon. Members represented no interest whatever. It is better not to make suggestions of that kind, but at any rate they do not contravene the Rules of the House.


I think I was careful to say, "representing the views." If the Noble Lord had listened carefully he would know that I said that it is unfortunate that the Minister should have made this concession and capitulated on this Bill to the little group who were slapped very hard by their own leaders in the House of Commons last year. What has happened in fact is that this Bill has been butchered to make a holiday for the Diehard Tories. [Interruption.] Their hostility is to the whole principle of town planning. They have sought to wound the Bill in its most vital part; indeed, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), who showed great courage in speaking on a Scottish Amendment that the Bill should be confined to England and should not apply to Scotland, expressed the view that he would prefer the Bill—not merely a little bit of the Bill, but the Bill—to be confined to Scotland, because he said he hated the principle of the Bill. That is the motive.


I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. All I did was to applaud the admirable suggestion made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to leave England out of the Bill.


That is so. That was hailed with great enthusiasm. That simply makes my point.


I am not disputing the point.


I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. It is true that he said he hated the principle of the Bill. This is the kind of levity with which this serious subject has been treated. The Noble Lord in Standing Committee moved an Amendment, I thought rather unnecessarily, to leave out "April 1st" and to insert All Fools' Day." [Interruption.] He was so proud of this that he had to bring it into the discussion last night. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had an Amendment at an earlier stage to change the date of the operation of the Bill, and he said that he believed that if the Minister had been able to accept it it would have done the one thing that he wanted to do, and which he had in mind, that is restore some of the old England of the past.

I could not help thinking and feeling at the time that it was a most appro- priate Amendment to come from a Member of the Diehard group. They have come back to the House on the Report stage and tried on the old game. The House has turned them down time and time again. Yesterday, I tried to help them, but they were defeated. They have not got a single further concession. The House is against them. Why? Because they know that hon. Members who are responsible for curtailing the powers in the Bill dislike the whole of the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, and it is very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have given way to them so early as he did. If the Minister believed that the Bill, as introduced, was right, then he ought to have stuck to his guns, and I am satisfied that the House of Commons would have supported him. If he believes that he made a mistake, then I suggest that he ought not to have introduced the Bill until he had made up his mind as to what he was going to stand by when it came to a fight. There is no doubt that the Minister's concession has been received by that interested section of the public with nothing short of consternation. Hon. Members will be aware of the conference, which Was very hastily called by the National Housing and Town Planning Council because of what had happened in Standing Committee. The Resolution showed how deeply disturbed they were because of the curtailment that had taken place in the powers given under the Bill. Their view was expressed thus: The conference, after careful consideration of the whole situation, records the opinion that the Amendment made in Clause 6 of the Bill will seriously prejudice, and in many cases render impossible, the effective replanning of built-up areas, and the preservation of amenities in rural areas, and the resolution goes on to ask that the Government shall bring back the purpose of the Bill to its original intention. That is the view expressed at a very large conference of local authorities and other representative bodies, by people who thought that a serious disservice had been done by the Minister's capitulation to the little knot of gentlemen who now decorate the third bench above the Gangway. [Interruption.] The word "decorate" has more than one implication. I think it is right to say that instructed opinion has developed even more strongly as the time has gone by. It is of little use for the Minister to say that this does not damage the Bill, and does not hurt the prospects of town planning, because everybody else who understands the question is satisfied that it does. I cannot see him in the line of prophets who stand against the world as one who is right when everybody else is wrong. I must regard with seriousness the views of our great local authorities and of bodies who have made town and country planning their special province. It may be that the local authorities are primarily concerned with their own areas, and not specially with rural areas, but from inquiries I have made it is clear that those who understand the application of town and country planning to the rural areas believe that the effect of the restrictions will be to leave large areas of ordinary agricultural land outside the scheme. I have no doubt that many hon. Members have read the statement of one who was for a long time a Member of this House—Sir Leslie Scott—on that side of the question, and I would commend to hon. Members a very powerful plea made by Lord Phillimore at the Bonar Law College, Ashridge, which must be a highly respectable place, when he spoke on "Agriculture and the Preservation of the Countryside." He asked whether the Amendment, which was the chief Amendment on Clause 6, has been helpful or the reverse to agriculture, and he went on to say: It is an argument of Sir Henry Cautley and those who are acting with him "— [Interruption.] I am sorry the hon. and learned Member is not with his colleagues on the other side.


I think the right hon. Member ought to explain what he means by "acting."


My consideration of the Reports of the Standing Committee seem to show that their hearts beat as one. I believe there is a certain community of interest between the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and the people who decorate the third bench above the Gangway. To resume my quotation from Lord Phillimore's speech: It is an argument of Sir Henry Cautley, and those who are acting with him that it was not necessary to subject those areas to the restriction where there was no chance of development taking place. Then Lord Phillimore goes on: Well, of course, this leaves a good deal of latitude for the Minister—too much I think. How is the poor man "— [Interruption.] I hope the Minister will not mind, because I am simply quoting from Lord Phillimore— How is the poor man to know where development is likely to take place? If I knew that, I should make a lot of money. I don't think I know any district in the Southern half of England where development is positively not going to take place. In most cases it depends upon who, for pecuniary or other reasons, is forced to sell his land. It depends, too, on how much the market for land is already glutted within that particular area. 4.30 p.m.

He goes on and makes a very strong plea for the consideration of the Bill as it stood before in the interests of agriculture and the countryside, as indeed, one of the means of really saving the countryside. In view of the arguments which have been adduced by supporters of the Bill, and by people who are interested in this problem and stand outside all political parties, I hope that the House will come back to its original position, one which was affirmed last year and reaffirmed this year and one which was on previous occasions affirmed by the representatives of local areas. It is clear that planning ought to precede development. It ought not to follow on the heels of development; it ought not to scramble hurriedly immediately in front of it, because that means bad planning, and that means that neither local authorities nor individual landholders can look ahead. If planning means anything at all, it means looking as far ahead as you reasonably can and making your plan, and, as time goes on and circumstances change, altering the scheme within the general framework. Long-distance planning, I believe, is a wise policy. Long-distance planning has been crippled by the Amendment accepted by the Minister. I sympathise with his difficulties on the Standing Committee. I can understand how hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, soaked as they were in 23 days of discussion last year, came armed to the teeth with all their arguments against the Bill. They had, in a way, a start of the Minister, which was a little unfortunate; but I should hope that the Minister will be prepared on this question to take the free unfettered view of this Committee here. [Interruption.] If there were a free and unfettered vote, I am quite satisfied as to what the result would be. If Members of the House of Commons representing a National Government really want to express here a national point of view on a particular problem, they have an opportunity of doing so now, when everybody outside is united—[Interruption.] I am not speaking of the ignoramuses and people who are not interested; I am speaking, as I have said, of bodies who can claim to be regarded with respect. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may, if they like, be contemptuous of local authorities; I am not. These great bodies who have been doing this work have a right to be considered; people and organisations whose energies are directed to this problem, and who understand it and its implications, have a right to be heard; and I say that, if the House wishes to express national instructed opinion to-day, it will agree to the deletion of this Sub-section and allow the Bill to stand as it was originally introduced.


I wish to support this Amendment from an angle rather different from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood). In fact, before this Amendment was put down by him, I put it down independently, and, if I had seen that his name was attached to it, I am not quite sure that I should have added my own, because, unfortunately, the angle from which he has approached it—quite rightly from his point of view—raises party feeling, and takes the question away from the really businesslike point of view. I speak for those who who have wished to support the Minister in his Bill all the way through, and who, I must point out to the Committee, were in a position of peculiar difficulty in putting their case, because certain of my hon. and Noble Friends organised a very strong opposition to the Bill, saying in most cases, although with some variations, that they would oppose the Bill root and branch. As they were thus organised, and very well instructed by the Property Owners' Association, whom they represent more especially, it was up to the Minister and, I think, five other Government Ministers who supported him in the Committee, to defend their Bill. Obviously, therefore, the less that was said by those who supported the Bill the better, but many of my hon. Friends, who were as keen as anyone could be on promoting town planning, and especially those who were new Members of the House, were boiling with rage at the fact that again and again speeches were delivered by my hon. and Noble Friends who were opposed to the Bill, and the others stood no chance; and then it was thrown in their teeth that no one had spoken for the Bill. My Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) did an ignoble thing last night when he said that no one had spoken for the Measure on Report. He knows perfectly well that the job of those who are supporting Ministers is to keep quiet and vote straight.

I hope that the House, now in Committee here, will look upon the matter from a fresh and detached point of view. It is true that the whole question of town planning is at stake in this Measure, and I say without hesitation that all who have studied and have had great experience with measures of town planning, whether they be voluntary societies or local authorities, unanimously support this Bill as it was originally introduced, and almost unanimously regret the introduction of this Sub-section. They regret the influence that the Property Owners' Association and their representatives have had on this Bill, and they support the deletion of this Sub-section in order to get back to the position as it was before the Bill left the House and went to the Committee. I am asked by the Association of Municipal Corporations particularly to bring forward two further Amendments which I have put down later on the Paper. The Association, although they would wish the Bill to be restored absolutely, without Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, feel that, if the Minister will not grant that concession, they would at least like to see included, definitely and in words, provision for the possibility of gradual changes which may be overlooked as the Sub-section stands at the moment. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment providing for the inclusion of such gradual changes in town planning schemes. Do any of my hon. and Noble Friends who are opposed to the Bill or to this Amendment dare stand up to the association which represents the municipal corporations whom they represent, and say that it is wrong?


Yes, certainly.


My hon. Friend does not represent one of the municipal corporations. I am speaking for the municipal corporations, who apply large minds to this subject, who have officials who are able to give their minds to it, and a large number of councillors and aldermen who have given voluntary service and who include many persons of the highest possible intelligence, even as high as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I say without hesitation that, if my hon. Friend and others who are opposed to my Amendment were to meet them face to face, they would not be able in fair debate to hold their own with those who represent the municipal corporations. The municipal corporations are opposed to the inclusion of this Sub-section because they know that they must have every possible power to deal with an evil that is growing. This question of town planning is not simply one of artistic merit. We are dealing with a matter which is developing every day, and in connection with which mischief is being done every day. Those who raised last night the question of economy, striking a sympathetic chord in every one of our breasts, did so without realising what they are really up against. The object of this Measure is that there may be control, reorganisation, and, as the Minister said yesterday, foresight.

I have no particular means of estimating the value of the work that is being done, even in a year like this, on developing, building, Toad making, and laying out in one way or another, but I suppose it would be generally agreed that it would not be excessive to say that probably £10,000,000 a year is being spent throughout the country on this business of developing. I suppose everyone knows of cases in which buildings that have been up only 10, or 20, or 50 years are being pulled down by pickaxe and hammer because they stand in the way of development. It is pitiful to see some of these houses which have been built even since the War being pulled down because they are in the way of some other form of development. How are we to stop this waste which is going on in. front of our very eyes? Surely, the way is to have a plan. Everybody knows that a plan is necessary, and everyone knows that a plan requires a certain amount of work and that that work must be paid for. Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said that he knew of one plan which had cost as much as £2,000, and he considered that this whole Measure would cost as much as £100,000 a year. Given that maximum estimate of £100,000 a year—


Minimum estimate.


Maximum estimate as he gave it yesterday. He did not give it as either a minimum or a maximum, but I have not the least doubt that he put it as a maximum.


I know that my hon. and gallant Friend does not want to misrepresent me. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I was putting £100,000 as the lowest possible figure, and I said that it would probably be 10 times that amount.


I am sorry that my hon. Friend has made such a bad amendment of his original suggestion. If he reads his own words, he will find that his original estimate was probably the more accurate one. Assuming that the expenditure is £100,000 a year on a business involving £10,000,000 a year, who will say that that is excessive for what is called rationalisation or bringing up to date? I am not going to enlarge on that subject, because everyone recognises the necessity for town planning. That being the case, we come to this particular point in the Amendment, and I want to quote the Minister of Health himself. The Minister said in Committee that the Amendment which is now incorporated in the Bill would exclude static lands, and that the effect of the second part would be the same with regard to rural land—it would exclude the merely static areas. I say that there are no static areas in this country at the present time. It depends upon what you call static areas, but I want the Committee to understand that in this matter of building and developing the country, especially on the wider basis of the road motor services which are now available, we are rapidly developing, and, in doing so, we are playing with fire. I will give figures relating to one or two cases.

Take, for instance, the case of Ken Wood. Who does not know that magnificent possession on the heights of Hampstead, acquired for the public with infinite trouble and at enormous expense only a few years ago? Probably 100 years ago no one would have thought that any necessity for town planning would arise there, and under Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 as it now figures in the Bill there would be no chance of its being carried out. I suppose that then the land was worth, perhaps, about £50 an acre. What was the price that it fetched owing to the fact that there had been no town planning? When it eventually became public property, the public had to pay for it, if I remember aright, something like £1,000 an acre. That process is going on all the time.

Another case is that of Welwyn Garden City. That was designed as an experimental example, to be copied in part or in whole, as might be required, by other developers. That area was bought at about £40 an acre 12 years ago. The cost of development has varied according to the situation, but it may be put roughly at from £600 to £700 per acre for roads, sewers and other services over the estate, so that an area costing £40 an acre is now worth about £650 an acre. In the central part of the town, however, the value goes up enormously. There, next to the station, which was only opened five years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is what is becoming a street, and places have been taken by three banks. For the last of them, the independent valuation of the district valuer, agreed to by the banks, works out at no less than an average of £32,000 an acre. There, in 10 years, you have land going up from £40 to £32,000 an acre in value. Who shall say that that is static? But it might have been considered static if the Bill were passed in its present form. That development is going on the whole time, and one cannot afford to delay. I should like to quote from one who was then one of the Members for Birmingham and was Chairman of the committee on slum areas. He afterwards became Minister of Health and is-now Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is what he said in 1927, addressing a meeting of the Manchester and District Joint Town Planning Advisory Committee: On the basis on which we are working now, it is not safe to leave any corner of old England unplanned, however remote it may seem to be from development to-day, and we shall not be content until every square inch of the country, from Land's End to John o' Groat's, is the subject of a town plan of some kind. He went further and said: You are preaching to the converted. Very early in one of my town-planning schemes in Birmingham I had to deal with an area the greater part of which was undeveloped but which contained certain spots already built over, and I was harassed and exasperated at finding that those built-up spots could not be included in the town plan.


Surely that would be included in the Bill without accepting the Amendment?


"Every corner from Land's End to John o'Groats." My hon. and gallant Friend has forgotten that.


That is not the point that I was dealing with. I was dealing with the last example that my hon. Friend gave of a town where development is hampered owing to the fact that there were a few old existing buildings there.


I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has raised the question, because I do not want to deceive the Committee. One does not want to exaggerate the case. There are many cases where this kind of development is likely to take place, and therefore they will come under this Bill. I have a large number. If only this were a lecture, one could give instances with photographs, but, despite the entreaties of my hon. and gallant Friend, I will not do so. It is clear that there are instances over and over again to which the Bill, under this Sub-section, would not apply. I shall be glad if the Minister will reassure me on this point. Take an ordinary residential area consisting of suburban houses with nice little gardens, built perhaps 40 or 50 years ago. It is quiet, with no traffic going through it and no commercial development of any kind, lying in what used to be the outskirts of a town which are now incorporated in the town. Would that be considered ripe for development? If it is, what is the good of the limitation? Surely that, above all things, will be considered likely to be developed in the near future—to use the actual words: or other development is likely to take place within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient.


The Clause that my hon. Friend has read deals with rural areas. The point that he was discussing is a residential area in town.


The actual wording is: in the case of land which is neither already built upon nor in course of development nor likely to be developed. That deals with rural areas. What I quoted, paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), deals with urban areas. I have here a case in which, a stable having been given up, it was started as a petrol garage, which may not be hideous, but which in this case involved intense trouble to the neighbouring residents, and two of the houses alongside it became vacant in consequence. I will only give another instance. The making of an arterial road knocked off a corner, and, as a result, a small shop which had been established between two residential houses became a corner shop. There is a case where there was no idea of an area being marked for development, and yet almost at once it became a busy corner, and the result was that several houses close by are now vacant and have gone down in price. With the present rapidity of development, you can never know what is going to be developed and what is not, at least in a town area.

The only way in which you can really plan properly is to plan for a whole town. Of course, you will not plan in detail for the whole town. You will naturally only plan in outline and fill in your outline as and when required. But you want to have a grip over the whole area, and then you can deal with it as and when required. I am afraid, if the Sub-section remains, you will still have development going on in certain areas, and there will come trouble, and, what is more abiding, trouble which you cannot overtake, especially if it takes the form of reinforced concrete and large buildings which cannot be dealt with by a subsequent scheme. May I take an analogy from Army manoeuvres? I was often struck in the old days by the fact that various neighbourhoods had to be removed from the area of manoeuvres because, perhaps, there were woodlands which the owners did not want the troops to go through, and it spoilt the whole idea. My hon. and gallant Friend would realise the impossibility of waging war if there were a bit taken off here and a bit taken off there and yet he had to go on with his plan of campaign. It is the same with town planning. We are face to face with what may be an enemy. It is a constant force manifesting itself in intense development, in which immense loss is going to take place to industry generally as well as to amenities, both in the towns and in the country, unless we have the power to plan. I want the Minister to be given power to allow these things to be included. He will knock them out if they are irrelevant. He will remove certain parts which are unnecessary, but I want him to have a free hand. Unless you are unrestricted in covering the whole ground, your scheme is bound to fall short of requirements. From all these points of view, I hope we shall get the unimpeded possibilities of the Bill as it left the House on Second Reading.


Had I not read this Clause and the Bill, I should probably have come to the conclusion, after hearing the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that Clause 6 (2) was intended to prevent town planning. The Clause in no way interferes with town planning. It is only intended to give safeguards to the community as a whole, and, in particular, to the owners of property. I make no apology to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield because I am responsible for the Amendment which has produced this new Clause. I am as anxious as he is for town planning. I was determined, when I went to the Standing Committee, to do what I could to make a bad Socialist Bill into a workable Measure, and I think, with the assistance of the Committee and with the very close co-operation and assistance of the Minister of Health, the Bill now gives local authorities opportunities of planning in a better way than the 1925 Act did.

It is improper to refer to my colleagues on the Front Bench and myself as representing any particular organisation. I represent no organisation. I have never been in communication with any organisation. My Amendment was put on the Order Paper simply based on the experience that I have had of town planning. Having been in contact with local authorities who were not fully acquainted with the conditions required under the Town Planning Act of 1925, which has created many hardships for property owners and liabilities for ratepayers, I intended to do my best to provide safeguards for the parties concerned. After all, Clause 2 says a local authority shall not have its resolution approved until it has bad the confirmation of the Ministry of Health. That is confined to two particular groups of property, to built-up areas, which are now included in town planning, and rural areas. There is nothing to prevent either of these categories of property being developed. As far as I have been able to judge, there has not been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield or by the hon. Member for St. Albans a single objection of a tangible nature which would justify the deletion of this new Clause. We have had a. tremendous lot said about town planning but nothing has been said upon this Subsection. The Committee would be very ill-advised to be influenced by the arguments put forward by these two Members. In the interests of town planning, which is most essential from Land's End to John o' Groats, I suggest that they give the Minister their support on this Sub-section.

5.0 p.m.


I support the Amendment and trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to the obstacles which will be put in the way of efficient town planning if the Bill passes in its present form. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has informed us as to whom our hon. Friends on the third Government bench above the Gangway were representing in Standing Committee A. As a Member of that Committee, it was pretty evident to me in the very early stages of our deliberations.


Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest that my hon. Friends and I represent any particular body? I represent no one but my own opinion and the opinion of common sense outside.


I do not think that any hon. Member in this House can say that I have attributed the representation of any particular section to the hon. Members opposite. I had not got to that stage. I was thanking the hon. Member for St. Albans who has told us whom they represent. For once I have backed a winner. He told us that they represent the owners.

Marquess of HARTINGTON

The hon. Member has quoted my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and may I say, on behalf of myself and those hon. Members with whom I am acting, that we do not represent any particular association. I did not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans, but I now say that it was absolutely without foundation to say that I had any connection with the Property Owners' Association, and the hon. Gentleman opposite is not justified in quoting it.


The hon. Gentleman informed us that it was so, and, if he was wrong, it does not remove the fact that the views of the hon. Gentlemen which were put forward in Standing Committee certainly led me to think that it was so. But I will accept what the hon. Member says. I think that any hon. Member of the Committee who has taken part in town planning under the old Acts of Parliament will agree that if the Bill is allowed to go through with Sub-section (2) still included it will take away the opportunity of having town and country planning dealt with efficiently, and 20 or 30 years from now there will be the same difficult circumstances as those which have faced us when we have endeavoured to deal with town planning in the past. If the Amendment is accepted—and it ought to be—we shall have a Bill which will give for the first time greater power to the linking up of a large number of authorities, including the county councils, for town and country planning. If the Sub-section is withdrawn there will be nothing remaining in the Bill but what gives the fair crack of the whip to every property owner in connection with every scheme which may come for- ward. The owners of property and land are pretty well safeguarded in the Bill, but if the Sub-section is allowed to remain we shall fail to link up the future life of this country upon lines which are very essential in the planning of the town and countryside.

The position of agriculture has been dealt with in the House in several Debates during the present Parliament. Is there any Member who can suggest that in dealing with future town and country planning large communities should not be linked up with the agricultural districts surrounding them? Agriculture has suffered owing to the fact that there has been no connecting link in town and country planning between large industrial centres and agricultural areas. Difficulties have arisen in transportation and the marketing of produce because there has been no co-ordination between the large centralised authorities and communities and the agricultural districts. We have reached a stage when we understand that agriculture is to be encouraged in this country to go further than it has ever gone before. It is to cultivate more and bring into the industrial districts fresh butter, cheese, bacon and all that kind of thing, and it is to establish bacon factories and develop sugar-beet factories. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members who represent rural districts that in the formulation of a Town and Country Planning Bill, which has a view to the future, the best thing that can happen is to have all classes of land, both built-up areas and agricultural land, inside a large town and country planning scheme. If that takes place, there will be nothing which will rob the landlord or the property owner in any shape or form. I trust that the Committee will agree to consider the question very seriously and will enable the Bill to be presented for the Third Reading, as far as this particular part of it is concerned, as it was when it came to the Committee. Many of us have suffered tremendously owing to the lack of decent town planning in the past when our colliery villages were built round colliery muckstacks, and all that kind of thing. The Bill makes legitimate provision for compensation and claims by owners, and the House at this time of the day ought to take a wider outlook and give the town-planning authorities of the country a reasonable opportunity to plan the country on healthy, efficient, commercial and businesslike lines.


In listening to the speeches delivered by hon. Members who are supporting the change proposed in the Measure, the impression might easily be gained that no thought of town planning would take place under the Bill as it now stands. If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Bill they will find that such is not the case. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who has just left the Chamber, made an interesting and weighty speech, but it seemed to me that every word of it was covered by the Bill as it is now drawn. He drew a heart-rending picture of the development taking place before our eyes. If that were the case, it would most certainly be included under the Bill as it is now drawn. He and his colleagues complain that certain restrictions have been placed upon the planning of the countryside. If the Bill is carefully read, it will be found that there is still provision for every single local authority from Land's End to John o'Groats to pass a resolution to town plan their area. The only restriction put upon them is that the Minister shall not give his consent to such a resolution if it appears to him to be unnecessary. It is a very moderate restriction in view of the present necessity for economy. There are many areas already freshly built up in which there can be no possible reconstruction for many years to come, and it can be nothing but a waste of time and public money to make those areas subject to a town-planning scheme with all the inquiries which have to take place. There are vast areas in the North of Scotland which are nothing but mountain, heath and moorland. Under the Bill as it was originally drawn, they would practically have to be subject to a town-planning scheme when there was not the smallest danger of those areas being covered with buildings.


No, that is not true.


The hon. Gentleman can put his case afterwards if he can catch the eye of the Chairman, and perhaps he will allow me to make my speech in the way I desire. There are many areas in the country districts of England in which there can still be no danger. The hon. Member for St. Albans gave away the whole of his case in the concluding sentences of his speech. He said that if we will only put the original Clause back into the Bill we can rely upon the Minister to cut out all unnecessary frills. That is exactly what we have done. As I have pointed out, every authority can pass a resolution and if it is in the least necessary the Minister can authorise it. If we take this matter on a common sense and calm basis and are not led away by propaganda, we shall find that the Bill as now drawn will entirely meet all the requirements of town planning. No difficulty is placed in the way of town planning, which we all desire to see, no one more so than myself, and we shall at the same time have taken a step towards that national economy which is being preached from all platforms by Members of the Government, and which we are now only asking them to live up to.

Town planning, obviously, is not necessary for the whole of England, if one reads Clause 47 of the Bill, which takes power to compel all authorities who could have town planned under the Act of 1925 to prepare schemes. They have not yet all done so, otherwise, there would be no necessity for that provision in the Bill. Presumably they have not done so because they have not thought it necessary and have not desired to spend the ratepayers' money. Under the Bill, those authorities will now have to prepare schemes whether they like it or not. It seems to be conclusive that there must still be many areas who do not require a town-planning scheme, and that is the justification for the attitude which we have taken. We are as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) for the interests of the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country. Those are the main reasons which actuate me in supporting the Minister if he resists the Amendment now before the Committee. I am sure that it will be found that he has ample powers to carry out all he desires to carry out with due regard to economy.


I support the Amendment, but I do not intend to deal with it from any particular political side or interest, because I feel convinced that everybody desires in this matter to come to the soundest conclusions from the point of view of the country as a whole. I approach the matter from that point of view. One must examine the Sub-sections which have been put into the Bill in order to see what is their application. It does not seem to be very profitable to discuss them in a very general way without first of all ascertaining the effect of the restrictions which have been put in. In regard to the first one, which deals with land already built upon, I want to give an illustration in order to see how it would operate. The Committee will bear in mind that one of the examples that brought about the insistent demand for the right to plan built-up areas was the Foundling site in London. The London County Council attempted to produce a town planning scheme under the old Act, but the Minister was advised that that scheme could not legally be brought forward under the old Act because it must be dealt with as a built-up area and not as an area likely to be developed under the old Act. If the Foundling site a few years before it had been sold had been considered under the terms of the prohibition in Subsection (2, a), it would have been found impossible for the Minister to be satisfied that he could plan it. Let me quote the words of Sub-section (2, a): in the case of any land already built upon,"— that was actually found as regards the Foundling site, and for that reason it was struck out of the town planning scheme— that public improvements are likely to be made,"— no one contemplated public improvements being made upon that site— or other development is likely to take place."— no one contemplated re-development on the Foundling site. A few years before the site was sold by the authorities no one would have supposed that it would be other than a permanent site in London— within such a period of time"— no one thought that such development was likely to take place— and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient. Clearly, it would have been expedient to have included it in a scheme but it would never have been expedient at the best to make a scheme for that portion of land. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the Minister to be satisfied unless he was satisfied: that the land comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, or that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion. The latter words only cover the inclusion of an extra piece of land in an existing scheme.


What was the position of the Foundling site when the London County Council tried to make a plan?


I am not dealing with that. The time with which I am dealing was five years before its sale by the authorities. It was not contemplated that it would be sold. It was sold because they happened to get a very remarkable offer by some speculators in land of a very large sum, which tempted them. Five years before that no one could have contemplated its sale, no one could have contemplated its re-development and no one could have contemplated that it would have come within Sub-section (2) (a) of this Clause. That means to say that if five years before the County Council or the Ministry had required and desired to get this open space, one of the very few open spaces which existed in that part of London, this provision would have effectively prohibited it.


On the question of selling, it would have come under the Schedule.


The hon. Member must see that that is too late. That is just the time when it is too late.

Mr. BEAUMONT indicated dissent.


The hon. Member shakes his head. There you have created a new vested interest in the site. Some one has bought it for £1,000,000. You at once get up against a difficulty. They say: "We bought this site with the right to do what we like with it. We did not buy it subject to a town plan that it should be kept as an open space." That was the argument that was put forward at the inquiry when they were trying to town plan it.


Anyone who bought such a site under this Act would buy it subject to the knowledge that in the night, so to speak, a Resolution dealing with it could be passed.


The hon. Member will see that we could not pass a Resolution until the new vested interest had been created. You would then get someone saying: "We have paid £1,000,000 for this site. If you want now to turn it into an open space and pay me £750,000, which means that I shall have a site worth £250,000, I am prepared to do it." If that had been planned in the last 20 years or in the last five years there would have been no question of someone coming along and saying: "I want £750,000, because I have just bought this site." That is why I suggest that anything which takes away the possibility of the longsighted view is very undesirable in a Bill of this character.

I appreciate that it may be undesirable from the point of view of economy at a given moment to plan the whole of the country, but I would invite the Committee to consider whether in fact this prohibition that has been put has not gone a great deal further than that. I am not arguing for the moment whether it is desirable to have prohibition, but I am asking what is the precise prohibition that has been put into the Bill. I suggest that from the point of view of the country and of the landowner this is going to raise great difficulty. The Minister will not have a free hand. He will not be able to say: "I do not think it is ripe for planning. I do not think you ought to do it from the point of view of economy. It is unwise to do it now." He has to say: "I cannot make this Resolution effective," unless he can find something in regard to redevelopment upon which he can put his finger. There are cases where you have large properties changing hands which one can never foretell. They depend upon some accident or some death in a family which owns a large amount of property, or some big charity suddenly finding itself in the position of wanting money or wishing to move into the country from the town. It is that type of case which is covered by this Sub-section and which it would be fatal to proper town planning to be so covered.

Let me come to the rural portion dealt with in paragraph (b). I am at a loss to understand what this means: In the case of land which is neither already built upon nor in the course of development, nor likely to be developed the Minister has to be satisfied that the land is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon, or in course of development, or on which development is likely to take place as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient,"— That means an odd piece of land that is brought into a scheme and is not likely to be developed; a bit to round off the territory or that it comprises objects or places of natural interest or beauty. Does that include the whole of "England's green and pleasant land," or not? If it does, the words of paragraph (b) might be omitted, because they can apply to anything. The Minister could be satisfied that any piece of countryside where there are trees, grass and hedges is a place of "natural interest or beauty." If, on the other hand, it is intended to curtail and confine it to places of particular beauty and interest, such as Symond's Yat, then it is going to be absolutely fatal to country planning. Let me illustrate the matter again with an example of a countryside which I know very well, the Cotswolds. What we suffer from there is not development in the ordinary sense and, not that land is likely to be developed in the near future. As far as one can see there is not likely to be what one generally knows as development in the Cotswolds for a long time. What we do suffer from is sporadic bungaloid growth in different parts of the Cotswolds.


By the district councils.


Not by the district councils. Whether it is by the district councils or not, what we object to is that we get it. Who puts it there I do not care. If the hon. Member agrees with me he will see that it is necessary to give someone the power to prohibit it, unless these bungaloid growths are going to form the nuclei of developments later on. I know of districts in the Cotswolds where one drives along and suddenly comes across some terrible little red brick building on the side of the road. No one could say that that was an area likely to be developed. No one could say that the Minister could possibly pass a scheme for that area. Here is a perfectly rural area with no development likely, and then you get these sporadic occurrences. The Committee will not be protecting the landowners if they do not leave out this Sub-section. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) laughs. I am perfectly serious. The good landowner does not like that sort of thing happening on his neighbour's land. It is always the other man who does the rotten things in the country. What power is there now to prevent it? An eyesore of that sort may spoil a whole district. It may spoil a view which the Minister might say was a place of exceptional beauty. I should agree that the whole of the Cotswolds would qualify under those words.

Let me give another instance. Not many years ago in the little town of Eynsham a sugar-beet factory was dumped down, a corrugated iron building on the side of the river. It polluted the river, was extremely undesirable, and the beauty of that little town or village was spoilt. Before that happened no development was going on and there did not seem any likelihood of development. There ought to be powers to stop that sort of thing. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not necessary that the wilds of Scotland should be planned, but there are other places besides the wilds of Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that under Sub-section (2) (b) the Minister could not possibly say that the rural districts which I have mentioned come within the sort of area that could be planned. Surely hon. Members do not suggest that rural districts of that sort ought not to be planned. Let me remind the Committee of what the Minister said on the 23rd January, 1931: If we are to keep anything of the amenity, beauty and form of the countryside, there should be forethought and power to enforce the results of forethought given to the proper authorities in a proper scheme of country planning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1931; col. 541, Vol. 247.] I agree entirely with that view, and I suggest to the Committee that the words which have been inserted, however desirable it may be to economise and however desirable it may be to give the Minister power to say that in certain cases country planning is unnecessary, put a bond upon the Minister which is far too rigorous, because it is bound to stop cases of planning where everybody I think in the House, from whatever point of view they look at it, would say that planning is necessary and desirable in the national interest.

5.30 p.m.


The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was correct in his anticipation that I should not be able to accept this Amendment. He fired a very ringing shot and imported some warmth of tone into a Debate which has hitherto proceeded on the level of the legal argument of the courts. In his more vigorous rhetoric he made two observations with which I find myself more than usually unable to agree. He referred to this as an agreed Bill. I have had ample opportunities of ascertaining the facts, and to suggest that this is an agreed Bill is an affectation in this Parliament just as it would have been in the last Parliament. I think there was a certain lack of generosity in the right hon. Gentleman attempting to believe that the Bill was an agreed Measure in the last Parliament. There was one other passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with which I was totally unable to agree. The right hon. Gentleman taunted me with accepting Amendments to my own Bill. He has held the position which I now hold for a longer period than I have held it, and I have great respect for his authority, but I cannot accept the principle from him that a Minister ought to be ashamed to accept Amendments from the House of Commons. On the contrary, I say that it would be something of which he might well be ashamed if he refused to accept Amendments from any foolish sense of pride. The practice of the right hon. Gentleman is better than his precept, because he himself was not in the least ashamed to accept Amendments to his Bill in the last Parliament. Why should I be ashamed of accepting them to this Bill in this Parliament?


There is a difference in accepting Amendments on vital principles of the Bill and accepting minor Amendments to the Bill.


All that means is that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the Amendments which he accepted to his Bill and disagreed with the Amend- ments which I have accepted to my Bill. As to the merits of the Bill, I am afraid that we have received little assistance from the right hon. Gentleman except some vigorous assertions based upon authority. Surely of all others in the Bill this is a matter which deserves careful attention on its merits. Many of the apprehensions, indeed all the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), whose acquaintance with this subject is well known, and the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) are based upon a misconception of the provisions in the Bill as they now stand. I do not blame anybody for lagging a little behind a perfect comprehension of the true provisions of the Bill, because it presents peculiar difficulties not only in requiring a close and practical acquaintance with the working of such provisions—and I confess that I myself have that acquaintance only at second hand—but also because this is altogether a new sphere of legislation, and one is not likely at first sight to appreciate the exact bearing of many of the new provisions.

Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the question on its merits, apart from any prejudices on one side or the other. I think we may leave aside the elements of prejudice which have been introduced and consider it simply and solely on its merits. The main object of the Bill, as I indicated on the Second Reading, is to promote the unity of planning. A plan cannot be a good plan unless it covers the whole of the area which ought to be covered. That is agreed; and the question is what is the area which should be covered by a plan. We ought also to remember this, that after all the control which is necessarily applied under planning is not in itself a good thing. On the contrary, it imposes certain disadvantages, and it is only to be accepted if it is necessary, for the purposes of a plan. Control ought not to be applied to a wider area than is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the plan. What has been done in Committee—a most useful and necessary work—has been to give the most scrupulous attention to what is the proper area, the minimum area, necessary in order to secure the maximum results from the control of the area.

The next point to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee is this, the very wide extension which is actually given to the area which can be planned under the present law. We have made a very long step in the direction of widening the area and strengthening the unity of planning; and it is as long a step as is necessary in view of the present tasks which we have to perform. What have we done? We have extended the scope of planning for the first time to built-up land, provided that the land is not in what we call a static state, that is, provided that it is land on which developments, including public improvements, are likely to take place within such time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient. For the first time built-up land is an area which can be planned. That was one of the principal things in the Bill, and it still stands in the Bill. Secondly, we are extending planning powers for the first time to built-up land which, though not included in the category to which I have referred, is so situate in regard to land in that category as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East, minimised that provision as applying to little bits of odds and ends of land. He must have done so for the purposes of his argument, because there is no limitation of that sort in the Bill. Indeed, I was very much puzzled to follow the lines of his logic throughout his whole argument. When we make a restriction in the Bill, it is fatal; when we make an extension that also is fatal. Either way it is fatal to the efficient working of the Bill. It can only be accounted for by the fact that the nature of his argument was conditioned by the end he desired to obtain.

Let me continue my description of the extension of planning given by the new Bill. We include for the first time rural land, which, though not being developed nor likely to be developed, is within the sphere of influence of such land and therefore ought to be protected by a scheme. Lastly, we include land, whether urban or rural, which contains features of historic or architectural interest. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East says the value of that provision depends on the meaning of the word "place"; and he asks whether it means the whole of England's green and pleasant land or only a "place." I suppose that when an Act says a "place" it means a place; and by a place it means, in the old phrase with which we are very familiar, a place within the meaning of the Act. I should imagine that there can be no doubt at all that by a "place" you do not mean a countryside but something which can be recognised as a feature or a spot in the landscape. I say this with some trepidation because I know how unwise it is to seek to read definitions into an Act of Parliament, because judges always come along and point out that you are wrong.

What is the result of that situation; and here at the risk of wearying the Committee I ask the Committee to follow me again with the same close attention, if they are interested in this topic, because a clear apprehension of the wide sweep we have given to the powers of planning under the Bill will lead to a cessation of the rather unfortunate misapprehensions from which we have suffered and which have been the cause of a good deal of the criticisms in general. What can you include as a result of this extension of the powers of planning? You can include in the case of urban land any land on which development is likely to take place. Secondly, you can include any land which comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historical, or artistic interest; and, thirdly, any land which is so situated that the general object of the scheme will be better secured by its inclusion. I ask hon. Members to think of any conceivable cases of land, which should reasonably be planned, and which cannot be included under one of these categories.

The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East quoted the instance of the Foundling site. Ho will forgive me for saying that that is a most unfortunate instance to produce; and for this reason. Under ordinary circumstances such a site as the Foundling site would be land which is likely to be developed beyond any reasonable possibility of doubt, but there was a special reason why that particular site was not likely to be developed, and the reason was special and peculiar to that particular site. It was the status of the landowner. The trustees of a great historical Trust were not considered in those days to be likely to bring their land into the market because of their peculiar status, and it is for that reason only that the site could be brought into the argument by the hon. and learned Member.


With the Bill as amended, would there have been any power to plan the Foundling Hospital site until the recent decision of the Governors to move out; and then how soon would it have been possible to plan it?


In the first place, I must utter a word of caution about pronouncing upon any particular case. I do not think it really tends to clarify the argument; and it is for that reason that I have tried to keep it out of the way. The answer to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is that it would depend on whether it was still held by the same people now as then. If the same peculiar conditions as to the status of the owner still attach, the conclusion would be the same now as it was then. Turning to the question of rural land, let me again ask the Committee to follow closely the state of affairs in regard to the extension of powers to which I have referred. In the case of rural land you can plan land, which is in course of development, or land which is likely to be developed. You can plan land in either of these cases, and also if it is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon, or is likely to be developed, so as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient.

Again, I ask the Committee to decide whether under these powers there is any possible case of land which ought to be included in a town planning scheme which could not be included. If we pass beyond these categories of land which is being developed or likely to be developed, or land which is so situated in relation to land developed or likely to be developed, that it ought to be included in a scheme, it is clear to every practical man that there are areas in the hearts of cities and in the remoter parts of the country to which none of these categories apply. If none of these descriptions applies to these areas, there is no reasonable cause for including them in a plan. A plan can serve no possible purpose in relation to land which has not been developed, is not likely to be developed, and whose inclusion in the plan on the ground that it is situated in some relation to land, which is developed or is likely to be developed, is not useful or necessary.

The answer to the apprehensions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans and to some of the cases quoted by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol was clearly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys). Most of these cases are clearly cases that could be included in the planning scheme. There are the apprehensions felt in some quarters as regards other and more general cases in great cities, such as Birmingham, where there are many areas of undeveloped land, bits of land in the city surrounded by built-over areas. I wish again not to be understood to be expressing judgment on these particular cases, but I can say that in a typical case of undeveloped land included within the bounds of a city surrounded by buildings, that that is land which is likely to be developed and could as such be included in the planning area. That is one of the great gains of the Bill.

Apprehensions were also expressed most clearly by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans as to the surrounding areas, the areas immediately around great cities. It appears to me that the typical case of open land which is surrounding a great city is clearly land which is likely to be developed. In fact it is characteristically the kind of land which ought to be included in a planning scheme. That can usually be done under the present law. Then we have the apprehensions expressed on two curiously contradictory grounds—the apprehensions lest the provisions should not work in the case where development is sudden, and the apprehension that the provisions would not work in cases where development is gradual. In either of those cases I think the answer is quite clear. Take the case of sudden development. I do not understand the difficulty of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol about the bungalows in the Cotswolds. If bungalows are going up I should think that in plain language that was development in progress. That is a condition which would warrant a plan. It is commonly said, "But development may be so sudden that it anticipates the plan; it takes place before you can deal with it." I am very sceptical about these cases, and about there being a number of cases worth noticing, in which there is development so sudden that it is not apprehended by anyone as possible or likely to take place. The mere fact that development has already begun is strong prima facie evidence that more is likely to follow. My answer to that criticism is this: In these cases, I should say that it is probable that the planning authority had been caught napping; they have not extended their plan sufficiently widely. If development comes along and takes them by surprise it shows that they have been lax in their duties. They have no one to blame but themselves. In the case of gradual development I think there is much less difficulty. In gradual development there will have been ample notice to the planning authority that it is an area which ought to be covered under the plan.

I have dealt with what I believe are the principal criticisms directed against the Bill and have pointed out the misconceptions on which I think they are based. I submit that the planning powers conferred by the Bill are adequate to cover all the practical purposes which are to be served by the plan and that they are a long step forward in the direction of unity of planning. The further step of imposing control, involving legal machinery, upon land where it cannot be of any practical purpose ought not to be taken. In this matter I have the comfort of knowing that the provisions in the Bill excite the hostility equally of those who are most advanced in their views on either side.


It is not quite fair to ask the Minister to give a specific answer with regard to special cases, but there is one region that does feel rather alarmed about Sub-section (2), and that is the Lake District. Those who are keen on. planning the Lake District and who, of course, include a large number of Members of this House, are not sure whether Sub-section (2) will or will not permit the planning of that region as a whole. As I read the Bill it seems to me that the Minister has power, that the regional authority can prepare a scheme for the whole district, and that nothing in Subsection (2) would prevent the Minister from giving his approval to that scheme. If the light hon. Gentleman is able to give a public assurance on that point it would console a great many people who do regard the Lake District as a unit of beauty and would wish above all things to see it so preserved.


I rise as one of those who attended every meeting of Standing Committee A, as a supporter of the Minister of Health. I am afraid that perhaps I did not give him much help, as I was able only on one occasion to vote against him, and that apparently is the duty of supporters of the National Government. I did not fail to note the sophistry with which the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the inevitable, for every single part of his speech, in so far as it referred to rural England, was an elaborate argument that it was totally unnecessary to waste the time of the House in introducing this Measure at all. The existing law gives us power to plan when building is in course of development or likely. We are not starting all this afresh. It is not on any ground of theory that people who are interested in the preservation of the countryside are anxious. It is because, in years of experience, it has been found in practice that all the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who conducts the Ministry of Health with such distinction and with as much efficiency as possible, have been found untrue in practice. It is not possible to prevent being "caught napping," as the right hon. Gentleman put it; with the best will in the world, as long years of experience have shown, it is not possible to prevent sporadic spoiling of the countryside, the missing out of estates which should be perfectly safe estates, such as that of the Duke of Montrose which recently was split up with such unhappy results, and so on.

It is not on the ground of theory; it is on the ground of practice. It was for that reason that this Bill was introduced; it was for that reason that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was necessary to plan the whole of England and Scotland. It was presumably for that reason that the Minister introduced the Bill in its original form. Why was the Bill altered? Why was it over-night curtailed in this unhappy fashion? It was because the right hon. Gentleman, to put it bluntly, was bluffed by the Parliamentary racket on the third bench above the Gangway. Those hon. Gentlemen and the Noble Lord pointed out quite truly that there were only two months before the House rose, and that each one of them was quite capable of talking without stopping for two months. They, therefore, said that if the Minister wanted his Bill at all he must do something about it. They put down an Amendment which, in effect, would have brought the Bill back to the original 1925 Act, and the Minister bought them off with this concession. I do not know that he gained very much by it, because even on the Report stage, after 26 days in Committee, we have had 150 Government Amendments which required what seemed like 150 speeches or the same speech 150 times from the Bill's opponents.

6.0 p.m.

However that may be, these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who hate this Bill, and say so with great candour, made the unhappy Minister's life a misery in Committee, and they have done their best on Report to make the life of other Members a misery. I hope they are satisfied with the result, though I am quite certain that no one else is. I am certain that ordinary people in all parts of the House are not satisfied. This concession is so palpably silly that it cannot by any stretch of imagination be made to mean anything whatever. As regards the preservation of the countryside, it means, in effect, that with one single exception we are back to the 1925 Act. The exception is the difference between the word "developed" and the word "built." All we have done for the preservation of the countryside, so far as the area included is concerned, is that the word "developed" in this Bill has a very much wider meaning than "built." To that extent we shall be able to include a good deal of land which otherwise would not have been included. I am the last to say that all local authorities are perfect, and I agree with some of the Jeremiads which my Noble Friend opposite delights to make as to the inefficiency, wickedness, laziness, incompetence, and so forth of local authorities. But nevertheless that protection of the local authorities, for what it is worth, is all that this unhappy countryside of England possesses. Now when unfortunately great estates are being broken up, such protection as we have is to be found in control over speculative building by local authorities. It may not be worth much but it is all that we have, and the fundamental vice remains here, that instead of being able to say that the whole of the land is to come under that protection and that any development which takes place has to pass that test, you will, if this concession means anything at all, find that a. great deal of the land of England is without such protection.

I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, the right hon. Gentleman cordially dissents, as I do, from the view that we want England just to have a few small beauty spots which will be carefully wired in and to which people will be charged sixpence admission and told, "This is what England used to look like." The whole of the English countryside in my short memory used to be, almost without exception, a thing of beauty. It is not little bits here and there that we ought to preserve, but the decency and general beauty of the whole, and I defy the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else to say that we should pick out little pieces of it for protection and to say, in effect, "You can do what you like with the rest." To do so would be just about as reasonable as to turn up somewhere in a beautiful evening dress with a large white shirt front but with two or three spots of mud on the shirt front, and to say, "These do not really matter because most of the shirt front is white." It is true that places which are known to be on the verge of being developed can be protected, but the ordinary normal quiet countryside, without special distinction, but with its own beauty, has not that protection, and we have found, not by theory but by practice, how much it needs that protection.

We know that the right hon. Gentleman would have done as much as anybody to give it that protection. He himself introduced a Private Member's Bill for that purpose. The House of Commons, without a Division, decided to give it that protection, but a small distinguished, and pertinacious—I will not say loquacious—body of hon. Members opposite have compelled the right hon. Gen- tleman against his will to withdraw that protection. I believe that this Committee will have great reason to regret that decision. I do not see, however, that we can press the Minister to do anything about it. We all recognise the scrupulous fairness with which he has honoured every one of his pledges, and I do not see how one can press him to alter, by one jot or tittle, the definite pledge which he gave in Committee. All that I would say, beyond regretting that the right hon. Gentleman made that pledge, is that while hon. Members opposite are entitled to the strict letter of their pledge, they are not entitled to one tittle beyond it. This concession by the Minister is so drawn that in administration it can mean several very different things. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, could, administratively, allay a great many of the fears of those who have done their best to support him in what we know to be his genuine desire in this matter. He could do so by ensuring that this concession shall not prevent any authority which is willing and able to exercise the powers given by this Bill, from so doing, unless he is satisfied beyond a peradventure that equivalent protection is present. If there are special reasons, if a place is so inaccessible that it may be regarded as fairly safe, then we must make the best of it, but I earnestly hope that the Ministry of Health will so interpret this concession in its narrowest way that our fears in this matter will prove to be wrong.


It is not often that I have the opportunity of showing myself in sympathy with hon. Members opposite but on this occasion I support the Amendment. When this Bill was introduced it was welcomed by all municipal authorities and by all associations connected with municipal authorities. I happen to be an old-timer in connection with this matter. I am an old town-planner and have had great experience in town planning and I come from a city which has done a great amount of that kind of work. The Bill as I say was welcomed as opening up a new era and enabling municipalities to enjoy many advantages. The idea, I understood, was to bring the old Act up to date and give us an opportunity of dealing with these matters on lines different from those which had been followed in the past. The Bill was also welcomed as giving an opportunity which we did not possess before, of dealing with built-up areas but if it goes through as it is now worded, all those advantages will be removed.

Who should have more right than the people located in these districts to say in what part planning is to take place? We are told that authority rests with the Minister and we all admire the right hon. Gentleman who now fills that position, but he will not always occupy it and it is possible that someone may come along who will not be as careful and as scrupulous as the right hon. Gentleman. I support the Amendment because I feel sure that it would give encouragement to town planning. Town planning has to be continuous. It is necessary to have regard to such matters as changed conditions of traffic and other changing conditions. Roads have to be widened and plans have to be made in time to deal with the various developments that are taking place. Clause 6 is the crux of the situation. I believe that it is going to do more harm to this Bill than all the other things which have been mentioned put together. When the Bill was introduced we regarded it as a Measure which was for the country's good but it has now been so mutiliated that we can hardly recognise it. This is one of the most important points raised in connection with it and I sincerely hope that the Committee will support the Amendment and give local authorities every encouragement in this matter.


I, like the last two speakers, am quite unconverted by the speech of the Minister. It is a great disappointment to me because I had hopes up to the last minute that the right hon. Gentleman would convert me to a belief in this complex Sub-section. Knowing the Minister's great interest in town planning and his general enthusiasm for planning I thought that the fault was in my own understanding and that his explanation would reveal some pearl of lucid definite meaning in the middle of the convolutions of this very involved statement. But as I listened to him it seemed to me that no such pearl emerged. What did emerge was an argument which really proved too much. The Minister tried to show that there was no piece of land, either under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Sub-section that would conceivably need protection by a town planning scheme which was not capable of being covered under the Clause. But if that is so what is the need for the Subsection? Has the right hon. Gentleman such a poor opinion of the local authorities that he imagines that they will go to the trouble of town planning areas in which there is no conceivable justification for doing so? Has the earlier Town Planning Act been so enthusiastically carried out and so widely extended that all that is necessary is to place a check and a curb on the enthusiastic town planning of local authorities?

Surely the opposite has been the case. The local authorities in many cases have been by no means eager enough to carry out their powers. If this Sub-section is only to rule out the town planning of bits of land which only a lunatic local authority would think of town planning, is it worth while going to the trouble and expense involved and wasting the time and hampering the energies of sound local authorities, by obliging a special inquiry to take place every time a local authority wants to prepare a scheme. It is true that the Minister is not to order a local inquiry in all cases but I fail to see how he will form the judgments required by paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) without a local inquiry in each case and the local inquiry is bound to cost money. The group of Members who are leading the opposition to the whole Bill—and to this Clause by way of hamstringing the Bill—are supposed to be enthusiasts on the subject of expensive inquiries and bureaucracy. What is more likely to lead to those results than to put upon the Minister every time a scheme is presented the necessity of satisfying himself on all the points raised by these two paragraphs?

One of my objections to the Sub-section is that it is unnecessary unless indeed in the case of an eventuality which is very unlikely to arise namely that of over-enthusiasm on the part of local authorities. Further, it is expensive because it will lead to local inquiries. I have two other objections which have not been removed by the Minister's argument. The whole tendency is to ask for short term rather than for long term planning. What is the meaning of the words: within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient, if they do not imply that a scheme should not be made out until development is imminent. It is just when development is imminent that it is much more hampering to property owners and much more likely to lead to claims for compensation if a scheme is brought into existence, than if it were done well ahead when nobody has invested money in the land or made plans which are likely to be dislocated by the town-planning scheme. I do not see how the Minister can deny that the whole idea of this Sub-section is to prevent town planning authorities from producing their schemes until, so to speak, the very last hour of the last day.

The other objection that I want to raise is that this is bound to lead to a capricious policy in the matter of town planning. Can anyone deny it? Read these two paragraphs, and note how amazingly vague are the expressions that are used in them. Here is one: within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient. Then again: or that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion. There are no definite criteria, there are no tests by which those words can be given a concrete substance. In the long run they throw the whole thing on the judgment of individual Ministers, and that is what I mean by saying that it will lead to a capricious policy in the matter of town planning. Everything will depend on who happens to be Minister of Health for the time being. So long as we have, as Minister of Health, a gentleman like the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), who is the author of two private Members' Bills dealing with town planning, we shall feel pretty safe and know that he has a judgment, when he has not got a gang of back benchers behind him whom he has to buy off, which can be trusted in the matter of town planning; but supposing he is succeeded by a Minister who is a Philistine, a Minister who is a die-hard, he may reverse the whole policy, and it is not safe, in such a matter as town planning, that so much should depend on the views of a particular individual.

As long as the responsibility was left to the local authorities themselves it was not so bad. I am not an enthusiast for local authorities in all respects, but at any rate you have something there that is never turned out of office altogether, so that there is a continuous stream of judgment brought to bear on town planning problems; and it is not good that local authorities should never know where they are, that they should feel, "Oh yes, we shall get this scheme through so long as the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks is Minister of Health, but it will be quite different if the Ministry goes out suddenly, through an election, and some other person takes his place."

I do not want to sit down without making some kind of definite suggestion, though, of course the suggestion that I should like to see adopted, namely, the acceptance by the Minister of this Amendment, is not going to happen. We all know that if we carry this to a Division, as I hope we shall, we shall be beaten, and heavily beaten, but there is one appeal that I would like to make to the Minister, and that is that he should to a certain extent safeguard the defects I have pointed out in this Clause by supplying himself with some body of persons on whose advice he can rely. When the Minister in the last Parliament was making his Second Reading speech on the Bill introduced by his predecessor, I noticed that he found three main faults with the earlier Bill. One was that there was no Clause in it dealing with woodlands; he has remedied that. Another was that there was no Clause dealing with advertisements; he has remedied that. The third fault was that there was no Clause setting up an advisory committee. Well, there is no Clause—


That was sheer ignorance on my part. The Minister of Health has powers under the general law to appoint an advisory committee.


I had already gathered that privately, but what I was leading up to was that if the Minister is not going to give us this Amendment, at least he should give us a promise that he will use his powers to form an advisory committee; and may I suggest that he should do more than form one advisory committee, that he should form regional advisory committees, because he really wants expert advice brought to bear on these problems. If this Sub-section is not to be capriciously used by Ministers with different policies and different Administrations, he really wants to be safeguarded by advisory committees representing the best opinion, not only of Whitehall, but of the different localities. This is largely a question dependent on intimate local knowledge. I happen to belong to a county which has not been kindly treated by nature in the matter of natural beauty—the county of Lancashire—and I note that such security as is given in this Clause for the preservation of beauty seems aimed mainly at safeguarding those counties that have been alluded to by speakers in the Debate, such as Sussex and Surrey, and the Cotswolds, bits of country that are rich in objects that are known as objects of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, but the ugly counties have to be considered too. Beauty is relative, and we who live in counties that are as flat as a billiard table and often covered in places with a cloud of smoke, know how beautiful they can be only so long as they are not uglified and made vulgar and disgusting and sordid by bad town planning, by bungaloid growths, by ugly groups of factory chimneys on a wonderful, elevated piece of country, perhaps where there is a stream and a bit of woodland, and something of a landscape is obtainable.

I often think in this connection of a remark once made to me by a poor woman who was sent for a country holiday somewhere quite close to the Mersey, where there was little beauty visible to the ordinary eye, excepting a few chimneys in the distance and the sweep of the Mersey itself. Yet it made her weep to think how beautiful God had made the land and how few people could see it. That is the way that the beauty of what is often called ugly country is viewed by those who care for it, and I beg the Minister to try to mitigate the great injury done to his Bill by this Subsection by gathering together advisory committees all over the country, where he can get the best local advice possible.

I feel that the one argument that appealed to him in the arguments of the Opposition was that the whole Bill puts too much confidence in the good taste of individual local authorities. We should not feel that there was so much danger from that cause if we knew that there were, all over the country, regional advisory committees advising the Minister as to the application of this Clause and of the rest of the Bill, committees which would contain representatives of the profession of architecture and experts on archaeology, on churches, and so forth, who could give him the best advice, and who would know beforehand what beauty spots there were in particular localities and what spots ought to be protected, and who would put the Minister wise before he was called upon for the decisions of so extraordinarily complicated a nature as. those raised by this Clause.


I really cannot understand the fuss which the last two or three speakers have felt about this Sub-section. There does not seem to me that there is any real limitation at all under it. It includes— the case of any land already built upon, that public improvements are likely to be made, or other development is likely to take place. Where is not that possible? The last speaker said that bungaloid growths might go up anywhere, but that means that any land is in a possible state of development, and therefore it would all come under this Sub-section. Then it says: or that the land comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic, on artistic interest. Any place with a church in it comes under this Sub-section, and any part of England can be included under it. In my opinion my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) has secured a purely illusory concession, and the Committee will make itself ridiculous if, having spent hours putting in an illusory concession, it now spends hours taking it out again. It will not do any harm to leave it in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will leave it there.


If the Sub-section is as innocuous as the Noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) says, one wonders why on earth the Sub-section is in the Bill at all and why there is any objection to taking it out. As a matter of fact, it is highly important to those who wish to retard the operation of the Bill and who, by all possible means, have stated their objection to the whole theory of town planning. Instead of retarding it, we want to give some assistance in pushing it forward. I agree that not all local authorities are to be trusted on questions of beauty, of architecture, and so on, and there is a good case to be made out for an advisory committee of experts and others who are interested and who are conversant with the whole matter from every point of view.

There is much force in what the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) said. He stated that he was afraid this House would regret the passing of this Sub-section. It is not merely this House. If it were, it would not matter very much, unless we use the word "House" with the meaning of continuity. One does not suffer immediately, from the beginnings of bad planning; it is the future generations who suffer. If bad buildings and bad planning were a temporary matter, it would not so much matter, but once begun on wrong lines, they continue and become of a permanent character, and one has to suffer for it for generation after generation, as we to-day know to our cost. When I was for a short spell engaged in municipal government, I was on a committee that had to do with town planning and improvements, and I know how important it is to have all the powers possible to deal with the questions that arise in that connection.

I understand, from arguments used from the other side, that very much of their opposition to this planning is due to the cost. They talk of the necessity for national economy, but how long is the period of national economy to last? Are they so pessimistic that they think the National Government cannot get us out of this difficulty in the next five or 10 years? Are national economy and all its implications to go on for ever and to curb and check every move that ought to be made in advance? To my mind, it is bad economy to allow wrong planning to take place, and that is the evil of the whole business. It is economy to spend wisely and to plan far enough ahead, and it would seem that, even with regard to the so-called outside rural districts, with the development of rapid transport on roads in hitherto unsuspected directions, the necessity will arise still more for safeguarding places that are apparently at present outside the area of possible planning.

6.30 p.m.

It is very well for the Minister to tell us about an authority being taken unawares. Anybody who has a bit of land on the edge of land that he knows is to be planned can at once set about developing his bit, and can create the very evils that we are desirous of avoiding. I would not like to say, after what we have seen in the last 20 years with regard to the development of transport, how soon many areas will not be brought in. There is the question of aeroplanes. One does not know to what extent far-off districts will be brought near at hand by an effective method of air carriage; districts may spring up in a few months' time which at the present moment are regarded as impossible. Therefore, I suggest that it will be wise to withdraw this Sub-section in the interests of town planning as a whole, so that future generations, not merely in the neighbourhood of towns but in areas far distant from towns, may be protected from the evils that those who live in towns know too well to their cost exist.


I ask the Minister to resist the Amendment. Speaking as one of those who have not inherited any bitterness from the Committee I say with confidence that many friends of mine are convinced that we did not go to the last election to support an unqualified Measure such as the original Town and Country Planning Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for the concessions which he has made and the way in which he has tempered the wind to us. We appreciate those concessions and ask him to resist this Amendment, which, as in the case of the original Bill, we regard as suspicious in its paternity. Those of us who support the Bill because it is a Government Measure do so with a certain uneasiness of conscience, so we do thank the Minister for the concessions which he has made.

Question put, "That the words, 'A resolution' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes 305; Noes 50.

Division No. 214.] AYES. [3.33 p. m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Christie, James Archibald
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Broadbent, Colonel John Clayton, Dr. George C.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Brockiebank, C. E. R. Clydesdale, Marquess of
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) Colman, N. C. D.
Albery, Irving James Brown, Ernest (Leith) Conant, R. J. E.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.) Browne, Captain A. C. Cook, Thomas A.
Apsley, Lord Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Cooke, Douglas
Astor. Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Bullock, Captain Malcolm Cooper, A. Duff
Atholl, Duchess of Burghley, Lord Copeland, Ida
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Burnett, John George Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cadogan, Hon. Edward Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Caine, G. R. Hall- Cranborne, Viscount
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Craven-Ellis, William
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Crooke, J. Smedley
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Cautley, Sir Henry S. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Dalkeith, Earl of
Blaker, Sir Reginald Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Bossom, A. C. Chalmers, John Rutherford Davison, Sir William Henry
Boulton, W. W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) Denman, Hon. R. D.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) Denville, Alfred
Sower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Dickle, John P.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Chotzner, Alfred James Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Donner, P. W. Knox, Sir Alfred Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Dower, Captain A. V. G. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ramsbotham, Herwald
Drewe, Cedric Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Ramsden, E.
Duggan, Hubert John Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Rankin, Robert
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Leech, Dr. J. W. Rathbone, Eleanor
Dunglass, Lord Lees-Jones, John Rawson, Sir Cooper
Eady, George H. Levy, Thomas Rea, Walter Russell
Eden, Robert Anthony Lewis, Oswald Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ednam, Viscount Liddall, Walter S. Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter, E. Lindsay, Noel Ker Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Elmley, Viscount Lloyd, Geoffrey Remer, John R.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Robinson, John Roland
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Rosbotham, S. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Mabane, William Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Ferguson, Sir John McCorquodale, M. S. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Runge, Norah Cecil
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Salmon, Major Isidore
Fox, Sir Gifford Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) salt, Edward, W.
Fraser, Captain Ian McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Fremantle, Sir Francis McKeag, William Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Fuller, Captain A. G. McKie, John Hamilton Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ganzoni, Sir John Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Savery, Samuel Servington
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) McLean, Major Alan Scone, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll, N.) Selley, Harry R.
Glossop, C. W. H. McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Macmillan, Maurice Harold Skelton, Archibald Noel
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Slater, John
Goff, Sir Park Maitland, Adam Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Graves, Marjorie Mander, Geoffrey le M. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Gritten, W. G. Howard Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Martin, Thomas B. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Guy, J. C. Morrison Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Meller, Richard James Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Hammersley, Samuel S. Milne, Charles Stevenson, James
Hanbury, Cecil Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw- Stones, James
Hanley, Dennis A. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Harris, Sir Percy Moreing, Adrian C. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Hartington, Marquess of Morgan, Robert H. Sutcliffe, Harold
Hartland, George A. Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Tate, Mavis Constance
Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Moss, Captain H. J. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Muirhead, Major A. J. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd) Munro, Patrick Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Train, John
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Holdsworth, Herbert Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) North, Captain Edward T. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hornby, Frank Nunn, William Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Horobin, Ian M. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Weymouth, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Palmer, Francis Noel White, Henry Graham
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Patrick, Colin M. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Peake, Captain Osbert Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hurd, Sir Percy Pearson, William G. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford) Peat, Charles U. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Perkins, Walter R. D. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe) Petherick, M. Womersley, Walter James
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Pike, Cecil F. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Potter, John Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Pownall, Sir Assheton Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Ker, J. Campbell Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Kerr, Hamilton W. Procter, Major Henry Adam TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Pybus, Percy John Sir Frederick Thomson and Lord
Knebworth, Viscount Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Erskine.
Knight, Holford Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Daggar, George Grundy, Thomas W.
Attlee, Clement Richard Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Batey, Joseph Edwards, Charles Healy, Cahir
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Hirst, George Henry
Buchanan, George. Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Jenkins, Sir William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, David McGovern, John Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Lawson, John James Maxton, James Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Leonard, William Milner, Major James Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Logan, David Gilbert Parkinson, John Allen
Lunn, William Price, Gabriel TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Thorne, William James Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 215.] AYES. [6.33 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Dunglass, Lord Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Eden, Robert Anthony Mabane, William
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M. Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Albery, Irving James Elliston, Captain George Sampson McKle, John Hamilton
Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Elmley, Viscount McLean, Major Alan
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Emrys-Evans, P. V. McLean, Dr. W.H. (Tradeston)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Apsley Lord Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Aske Sir Robert William Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Atholl Duchess of Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Atkinson Cyril Everard, W. Lindsay Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Fermoy, Lord Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Marsden, Commander Arthur
Balniel, Lord Ford, Sir Patrick J. Martin, Thomas B.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Fox, Sir Gifford Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Barton Capt. Basil Kelsey Fraser, Captain Ian Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Fuller, Captain A. G. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Beaumont, M.W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Ganzoni, Sir John Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Beaumont Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Gillett, Sir George Masterman Milne, Charles
Belt. Sir Alfred L. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Glossop, C. W. H. Mitcheson, G. G.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Gluckstein, Louis Halle Moreing, Adrian C.
Bevan Stuart James (Holborn) Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Morgan, Robert H.
Blaker, Sir Reginald Goff, Sir Park Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Bossom, A. C. Goldie, Noel B. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Boulton, W. W. Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Morrison, William Shepherd
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Moss, Captain H. J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George, E. W. Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Muirhead. Major A. J.
Bracken, Brendan Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Munro, Patrick
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Gritten, W. G. Howard Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Broadbent, Colonel John Gunston, Captain D. W. Newton, Sir Douglas George, C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Guy, J. C. Morrison Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) Hales, Harold K. North, Captain Edward T.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Nunn, William
Brown, Bring.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) O'Connor, Terence James
Browne, Captain A. C. Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Hammersley, Samuel S. Ormiston, Thomas
Butler, Richard Austen Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Hartington, Marquess of Palmer, Francis Noel
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Hartland, George A. Patrick, Colin M.
Carver Major William H. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Peake, Captain Osbert
Cassels, James, Dale Hasiam, Sir John (Bolton) Pearson, William G.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Petherick, M.
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh Hornby, Frank Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Chalmers, John Rutherford Horsbrugh, Florence Pike, Cecil F.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Howard, Tom Forrest Potter John
Chotzner, Alfred James Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Christie, James Archibald Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Power, Sir John Cecil
Clarke, Frank Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Procter, Major Henry Adam
Clarry, Reginald George Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Clayton Dr. George C. Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hurd, Sir Percy Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Ramsden, E.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Ray, Sir William
Colville, John James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. Rea, Walter Russell
Conant, R. J. E. Jesson, Major Thomas E. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cook, Thomas A. Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Copeland, Ida Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Remer, John R.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Ker, J. Campbell Rentoul, Sir Gervais, S.
Cranborne, Viscount Kerr, Hamilton W. Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Craven-Ellis, William Kimball, Lawrence Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Crooke. J. Smedley Kirkpatrick, William M. Robinson, John Roland
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Rosbotham, S. T.
Crossley, A. C. Knox, Sir Alfred Ross, Ronald D.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Curry, A. C. Law, Sir Alfred Salmon, Major Isidore
Dalkeith, Earl of Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Leech, Dr. J. W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwon)
Denville, Alfred Leighton, Major B. E. P. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Dickie, John P. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Doran, Edward Levy, Thomas Savery, Samuel Servington
Dower, Captain A. V. G. Lewis, Oswald Scone, Lord
Drewe, Cedric Liddall, Walter S. Selley, Harry R.
Duckworth, George A. V. Lindsay, Noel Ker Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe- Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Duggan, Hubert John Loder, Captain J. de Vere Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Sinclair, Maj. Ht. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Skelton, Archibald Noel Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Slater, John Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Wells, Sydney Richard
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.) Summersby, Charles H. Weymouth, Viscount
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Sutcliffe, Harold White, Henry Graham
Smith-Carington, Neville W. Tate, Mavis Constance Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Somervell, Donald Bradley Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Soper, Richard Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Thorp, Linton Theodore Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) Withers, Sir John James
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) Train, John Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Stevenson, James Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon Worthington, Dr. John V.
Stones, James Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Storey, Samuel Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Strauss, Edward A. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Strickland, Captain W. F. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Mr. Womersley and Commander
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. Southby.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Milner, Major James
Attlee, Clement Richard Hirst, George Henry Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Briant, Frank Holdsworth, Herbert Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George Janner, Barnett Price, Gabriel
Burnett, John George Jenkins, Sir William Rathbone, Eleanor
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thorne, William James
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David Tinker, John Joseph
Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Wallhead, Richard C.
Eady, George H. Lawson. John James Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Edwards, Charles Leonard, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Fremantle, Sir Francis Lunn, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Mr. Groves and Mr. John.
Grundy, Thomas W. Maxton, James

I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, after the word "resolution," to insert the words: applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 313.

[Division No. 216. AYES. [6.45 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Hirst, George Henry Price, Gabriel
Attlee, Clement Richard Jenkins, Sir William Rathbone, Eleanor
Buchanan, George John, William Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Leonard, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Maxton, James Mr. Groves and Mr. Gordon
Grundy, Thomas W. Milner, Major James Macdonald
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Parkinson, John Allen
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Atkinson, Cyril Blaker, Sir Reginald
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Bailey, Eric Alfred George Bossom, A. C.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Boulton, W. W.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Albery, Irving James Balniel, Lord Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Bracken, Brendan
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Briant, Frank
Apsley, Lord Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Aske, Sir Robert William Belt, Sir Alfred L. Broadbent, Colonel John
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Atholl, Duchess of Bevan, Stuart James (Holbo[...]n) Brown. Col. D, C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry North, Captain Edward T.
Browne, Captain A. C. Hartington, Marquess of Nunn, William
Burnett, John George Hartland, George A. O'Connor, Terence James
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ormiston, Thomas
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Carver, Major William H. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Palmer, Francis Noel
Cassels, James Dale Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Patrick, Colin M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Peake, Captain Osbert
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Pearson, William G.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh Holdsworth, Herbert Perkins, Walter R. O.
Chalmers, John Rutherford Hornby, Frank Petherick, M.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) Horobin, Ian M. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Chotzner, Alfred James Horsbrugh, Florence Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Christie, James Archibald Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Clarke, Frank Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Pike, Cecil F.
Clarry, Reginald George Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Potter, John
Clayton, Dr. George C. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Procter, Major Henry Adam
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Pybus, Percy John
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hurd, Sir Percy Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Colville, John Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Ramsay, Capt A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Conant, R. J. E. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)
Copeland, Ida James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Ramsbotham, Herwald
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Janner, Barnett Ramsden, E.
Cranborne, Viscount Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ray, Sir William
Craven-Ellis, William Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Rea, Walter Ruasell
Crooke, J. Smedley Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Crooksnank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Ker, J. Campbell Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Crossley, A. C. Kerr, Hamilton W. Remer, John R.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Kimball, Lawrence Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Kirkpatrick, William M. Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Curry, A. C. Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Dalkeith, Earl of Knox, Sir Alfred Rosbotham, S. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ross, Ronald D.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Denville, Alfred Law, Sir Alfred Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Dickie, John P. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Doran, Edward Leech, Dr. J. W. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Drewe, Cedric Leighton, Major B. E. P. Salmon, Major Isidore
Duckworth, George A. V. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Salt, Edward W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Levy, Thomas Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Duggan, Hubert John Lewis, Oswald Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Liddall, Walter S. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Dunglass, Lord Lindsay, Noel Ker Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Eales, John Frederick Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe- Savery, Samuel Servington
Eden, Robert Anthony Loder, Captain J. de Vere Scone, Lord
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Selley, Harry R.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Mabane, William Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Elmley, Viscount Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) McKie, John Hamilton Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Skelton, Archibald Noel
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare McLean, Major Alan Slater, John
Everard, W. Lindsay McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Fermoy, Lord Macmillan, Maurice Harold Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Mander, Geoffrey le M. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Fox, Sir Gifford Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Fraser, Captain Ian Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Soper, Richard
Fuller, Captain A. G. Marsden, Commander Arthur Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Ganzoni, Sir John Martin, Thomas B. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Glossop, C. W. H. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Stevenson, James
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Milne, Charles Stones, James
Goff, Sir Park Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Storey, Samuel
Goldie, Noel B. Mitcheson, G. G. Strauss, Edward A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale Strickland, Captain W. F.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Moreing, Adrian C. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Morgan, Robert H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Summersby, Charles H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Morrison, William Shepherd Sutcliffe, Harold
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Moss, Captain H. J. Tate, Mavis Constance
Gunston, Captain D. W. Mulrhead, Major A. J. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison Munro, Patrick Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hales, Harold K. Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. Withers, Sir John James
Train, John Wells, Sydney Richard Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Weymouth, Viscount Worthington, Dr. John V.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) White, Henry Graham Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Williams, Charlas (Devon, Torquay) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Wills, Wilfrid D. Mr. Womersley and Commander
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) Southby.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, at the end, to insert the words: (b) In giving his approval to a resolution under the last foregoing Sub-section and in making an order thereunder the Minister shall by the imposition of conditions or, as the case may be, by the terms of his order secure that—

  1. (i) any person whose property has been injuriously affected by reason that since the commencement of this Act the Minister has refused, on an appeal made to him under an interim development order, to grant an application for permission to develop the property or that the Minister has imposed any conditions on the grant of an application made since that date; and
  2. (ii) any person who, for the purpose of complying with any conditions imposed on the grant of such an application, has since the commencement of this Act incurred expenditure which is rendered abortive by the revocation of the resolution to prepare a scheme;
shall be entitled, if he makes a claim for the purpose within twelve months from the date when the resolution is approved or the order is made, as the case may be, to claim compensation from such authority as may be specified in the condition or order. Provided that the Minister shall not secure a right to compensation in respect of any injurious affection of property arising from refusal to permit any development, or from the imposition of any conditions where he is satisfied that, if a scheme had come into operation containing provisions which would have had the effect of prohibiting that development, or under which those conditions could have been enforced, no right to compensation would have arisen under this Act in respect of the injurious affection of the property by the coming into operation of those provisions. To anyone who may suspect that there is more in this Amendment than meets the eye, I would say that it is a very simple matter. It is part of the machinery for carrying out that arrangement as regards compensation during the interim period which I fully described to the House at an earlier stage. The criticism was made that it was unfair that anyone should be deprived of compensation where, after a resolution to prepare a scheme had been passed, a restriction had been imposed upon which a claim to compensation could normally be based and subsequently the resolution had to be negatived so that the scheme had never come into force. This Amendment provides that in such a case the right to claim compensation, which would have accrued, shall not be lost by the revocation of the resolution. The Amendment is just a working-out of that position, which I believe will commend itself to the Committee as being obviously fair. There are two Amendments to the proposed Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). In line 3, to leave out from the word "order," to the end of line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words: Provide that any person who, after the date of the passing of this Act—
  1. (i) has appealed to the Minister under Sub-section (3) of Section sixteen of this Act and whose appeal has been dismissed or allowed subject to conditions and whose property has been injuriously affected thereby; or
  2. (ii) has incurred expenditure in complying with any such conditions, which expenditure has been rendered abortive by such resolution or order as aforesaid."
To leave out lines 16 to 22, and to insert instead thereof, the words: Provided that no such provision shall extend to entitle any person to compensation in respect of any such injurious affection as aforesaid in any case where the prohibition of development or imposition of conditions are of such a character that they would not have entitled such person to compensation if a scheme containing provisions which would have had the effect of prohibiting such development or authorising the imposition of such conditions had come into operation. There may be points in those Amendments which commend themselves to the Committee, but I suggest, with the consent of the hon. and learned Member that instead of their being disposed of now I should undertake to give consideration to them with a view to their being accepted, subject to any necessary drafting alterations, in another place.


My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked me to say that he is agreeable to that course.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 41.

Division No. 217.] AYES. [6.59 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Duckworth, George A. V. Knox, Sir Alfred
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Duggan, Hubert John Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M. Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.) Law, Sir Alfred
Albery, Irving James Dunglass, Lord Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Eales, John Frederick Leech, Dr. J. W.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Eden, Robert Anthony Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Aske, Sir Robert William Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Elliston, Captain George Sampson Levy, Thomas
Atholl, Duchess of Elmley, Viscount Lewis, Oswald
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Emrys Evans, P. V. Liddall, Walter S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Lindsay, Noel Ker
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Balniel, Lord Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Everard, W. Lindsay Lumloy, Captain Lawrence R.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Mabane, William
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayiesbury) Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.) Ford, Sir Patrick J. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Fox, Sir Gilford McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Fraser, Captain Ian McKeag, William
Blaker, Sir Reginald Fremantle, Sir Francis McKie, John Hamilton
Bossom, A. C. Fuller, Captain A. G. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Boulton, W. W. Ganzoni, Sir John McLean, Major Alan
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Gillett, Sir George Masterman McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Bracken, Brendan Glossop, C. W. H. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Briant, Frank Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Goff, Sir Park Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Broadbent, Colonel John Goldie, Noel B. Marsden, Commander Arthur
Brockiebank, C. E. R. Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Martin, Thomas B.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Gower, Sir Robert Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Browne, Captain A. C. Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Burnett, John George Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Milne, Charles
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)
Carver, Major William H. Gunston, Captain D. W. Mitcheson, G. G.
Cassels, James Dale Guy, J. C. Morrison Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hales, Harold K. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Moreing, Adrian C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Morgan, Robert H.
Chalmers, John Rutherford Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd) Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Chotzner, Alfred James Hartland, George A. Morrison, William Shepherd
Christie, James Archibald Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n) Moss, Captain H. J.
Clarke, Frank Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Muirhead, Major A. J.
Clarry, Reginald George Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Munro, Patrick
Clayton, Dr. George C. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Nail, Sir Joseph
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Holdsworth, Herbert Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hornby, Frank Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Colville, John Horobin, Ian M. Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Conant, R. J. E. Horsbrugh, Florence North, Captain Edward T.
Copeland, Ida Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Nunn, William
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) O'Connor, Terence James
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Cranborne, Viscount Hume, Sir George Hopwood Ormiston, Thomas
Craven-Ellis, William Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Crooke, J. Smedley Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Palmer, Francis Noel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Patrick, Colin M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. Peake, Captain Osbert
Crossley, A. C. Janner, Barnett Pearson, William, G.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Jesson, Major Thomas E. Petherick, M.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Curry, A. C. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Dalkeith, Earl of Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Picktord, Hon. Mary Ada
Denman, Hon. R. D. Ker, J. Campbell Pike, Cecil F.
Denville, Alfred Kerr, Hamilton W. Potter, John
Dickie, John P. Kimball, Lawrence Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Doran, Edward Kirkpatrick, William M. Power, Sir John Cecil
Drewe, Cedric Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Pybus, Percy John Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness) Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald Skelton, Archibald Noel Train, John
Ramsden, E. Slater, John Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Ray, Sir William Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. Vaughan Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.) Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Reid, William Allan (Derby) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Remer, John R. Somervell, Donald Bradley Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Renwick, Major Gustav A. Soper, Richard Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Wells, Sydney Richard
Rosbotham, S. T. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. Weymouth, Viscount
Ross, Ronald D. Spencer, Captain Richard A. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Stevenson, James Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Salmon, Major Isidore Stones, James Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Salt, Edward W. Storey, Samuel Withers, Sir John James
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Strauss, Edward A. Womersley, Walter James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Strickland, Captain W. F. Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Summersby, Charles H.
Savery, Samuel Servington Sutcliffe, Harold TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Scone, Lord Tate, Mavis Constance Major George Davies and Commander Southby.
Selley, Harry R. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Hirst, George Henry Price, Gabriel
Attlee, Clement Richard Jenkins, Sir William Rathbone, Eleanor
Buchanan, George John, William Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown) Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Williams, David (Swansea, East)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Leonard, William Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Maxton, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, Thomas W. Milner, Major James Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Parkinson, John Allen

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.