HC Deb 01 August 1947 vol 441 cc840-56

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 14, at end, insert: (b) where at any time before the said date an order has been made under Section twenty-six of this Act requiring the removal of any building or the discontinuance of any use, and compensation has become payable in respect of that order under section twenty-seven of this Act, it shall be assumed for the purposes aforesaid that planning permission would not be granted for the rebuilding of that building or the resumption of that use.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams

This seems to be a rather fuller Amendment than some of the others. Could we have some explanation of it? If it is one of the 200 drafting Amendments, it is fairly considerable. I would like to know where we stand, especially in regard to the last three or four words.

Mr. Silkin

Could the hon. Gentleman say what is his difficulty?

Mr. Williams

My difficulty is that I want an explanation of what the words mean, if it is possible to have one.

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 58, line 14, after the Amendment last inserted, insert: (3) Without prejudice to any rule of law affecting the assessment of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land in pursuance of any enactment, no account shall be taken in calculating the value of an interest in land designated by a development plan under this Act as subject to compulsory acquisition of any depreciation in the value of that interest which is attributable to the designation.

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 14, after the Amendment last inserted, insert: (3) Where, at any time before the date of the notice to treat, planning permission has been granted under Part III of this Act for any development of the land, other than development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, or is deemed to have been so granted, then except where either—

  1. (a) any sum has been paid under Part VII of this Act by way of development charge in respect of that development; or
  2. (b) no such charge is payable in respect of that development by virtue of any of the provisions of Part VIII of this Act;
the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates shall be calculated as if that permission had not been granted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, after "granted" to insert: or has been granted since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If it is agreeable to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it might be convenient to take the two other Amendments to the Lords Amendment at the same time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Of course, I am only too glad to do that. The first and third Amendments really seek to deal with different points from those of the second Amendment. Therefore, I propose to start what I am afraid may be a fairly lengthy speech by dealing with the first and third Amendments and then I shall come back to the point of the second Amendment. The third Amendment is, at the end of line 12, to insert: or would have been payable if the planning permission granted since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, had been granted under Part III of this Act. The second Amendment is, at the end of line 12, to insert: or would have been so payable if that permission had not been revoked. These Amendments raise a rather complicated and difficult point which I shall try to state as clearly as I can. The Amendment from another place is an endeavour to meet a point I raised on Report stage and to some extent it meets it successfully. However, it still contains what I regard as a rather grave flaw. I hope that after he has heard the argument the right hon. Gentleman will promise to do his best to meet it. The point I raised on Report stage was that in Clause 78 as it now is, ripe land was excluded from liability to pay a development charge and the right to obtain compensation. I suggested that that may be all right, but when ripe land is acquired compulsorily, then wholly different circumstances apply, and, unless some alteration is made, the owner of ripe land will be penalised by the fortuitous fact that a local authority seeks to acquire it. The Amendment from another place sought to deal with that point, and to some extent it succeeds.

If I am going to make my point clear, I must ask hon. Members to look at Clause 78. Under Clause 78, to consti- tute ripe land, it must be shown that the development values are wholly or mainly attributable to the prospects of development at the appointed day. Also it must be shown that a building contract has been made since 7th January, 1937, and is still in force, or that a bylaw submission has been made since that date. I draw the attention of the House to that. It also provides that a building application should have been made since then. The third condition which must be satisfied before land can come within Clause 78, and before the owner of land compulsorily acquired can receive the benefit of the Amendment from another place, is that planning permision for the development is granted under Part III of the Bill or is deemed to be so granted by Clause 75. In the Bill as it stands, it is Clause 76 but there is an Amendment on the Paper to alter it to Clause 75.

Probably, I can make my point more clear by putting an imaginary case to the House. Suppose there is a site in a town where the development is clearly attributable to the prospects of development on the appointed day. Suppose there is a cleared site which would have been built on but for the war, a site which was cleared for building before the war. That satisfies the first condition. Let me assume also that a building contract in relation to this site was made on 10th January, 1937, and is still in force. That satisfies the second condition. Suppose that this building contract was for building for industrial purposes, with the approval of the local planning authority, in an area zoned for industrial purposes. I think that in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would say that it really would be the intention that that land would come within Clause 78 and that where there was compulsory acquisition of that land it should come within the Amendments from another place, but it will not. It is only under Clause 78 that planning permission is given under this Bill.

1.45 p.m.

Following on my argument, let us suppose, that, because of the war, that particular site is now wanted for housing and that the local planning authority want to acquire it for housing purposes. They would then refuse planning permission for industrial purposes, and that would mean that this land would not come within the terms of this Amendment made in another place. The second point one has to consider is that it could not come under this Amendment because planning permission would not be given now, although the use of the site for industrial purposes was with the approval of the local authority and in conformity with their plan in the past—because of the damage done by the enemy and the need for housing—because of the provision in Clause 78 that permission shall in certain circumstances be deemed to be given. That throws us back to Clause 75, and there one sees that permission will only be deemed to have been given where application has been made after 21st July, 1943, and before the appointed day under an interim development order.

May it not happen that a man, who satisfied all the other conditions, but did not, in war-time, apply for permission to develop since that date in 1943, who has got his building contract from January, 1937, who has his site cleared and whose plan is in conformity with the local authority's plan as it existed before the war, with the definite approval of the local authority, will now find that, because the land is now wanted for housing, and because he did not apply in wartime since that date in 1943, he will be deprived of the benefit of this Amendment? I cannot believe that that is really the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government.

It is interesting to see that, under Clause 76, another criterion is imposed, in addition to the permission under the interim development order. Clause 76 provides for the carrying out of works in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with permission granted by or under an interim development order, and, in Clause 77, we find these words again: in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he really is restricting the operation of this Amendment too narrowly by limiting it to a particular class of case where actual permission given under this Bill, or where permission has been given under an interim development order since 1943, and I suggest to him as strongly as I can that, if he wants, as I imagine he does, to do equity in this matter, he should insert in this Amendment words to the effect that where, before 1943 the development was in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, the other conditions, of course, being satisfied, the owner of the land might get the benefit of this Amendment.

So far as I can see, no reason has been given for differentiating between the owner who has applied since 1943, the other conditions being satisfied, and the owner who failed to do so. That really does not distinguish between what is and what is not dead ripe land. I hope I have made my point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I might say to him straight away that I am not at all certain that the first and third Amendments now under discussion are really effective for carrying out the purpose which I have in mind, and I hope he will not, as I am sure he will not, take up any time in discussing the wording of these Amendments, but will merely deal with the serious point at issue.

The third point is dealt with by the second Amendment. In Clause 78, if it is amended by an Amendment which has come from another place, the local authority will have power to revoke permission for development granted under this Bill, and that means that, supposing we have—and this may happen, because the Minister cannot watch every local authority—supposing we have a local planning authority which has given permission under Clause 78 and then says to itself, "Well, we want this land for housing. We have given permission under Clause 78, and, because we have given that permission, it is dead ripe land, and, if we buy it now under this Clause, we shall have to pay a great deal more than we would pay if we revoked the permission." If these Amendments are carried, that can be done, and, that being so, it will be in the interests of local authorities to revoke permission in certain cases.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not like that action to be taken, but it may be very difficult to find out what are the real motives for the revocation of permission, and I suggest to him that, while the land may be ripe from the planning point of view, when revoking the permission, at the same time, from the compensation point of view, that revocation can have no effect, and that is the purpose of the second Amendment. If the second Amendment is carried, it will provide that, while the local authority has power under the Clause to revoke permission, yet, at the same time, when the local authority does want to acquire that land, it will not gain any financial advantage by that revocation. It means that ripe land which comes within Clause 78 shall not cease to be ripe land by the mere fact that the local authority seeks to acquire it. I have put these two points as shortly as I can, and I hope I have made them clear to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Digby (Dorset, Western)

I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Silkin

I certainly will not take up time in criticising the wording, effective as it may be, of the Amendments, because the hon. and learned Gentleman made quite clear what it is that he seeks to achieve. I think that, to put it in a sentence, he wants to secure for owners of land coming within the category which he described the advantage of full compensation if their land is acquired for public purposes, rather than that they should be paid on the basis of the existing use value. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for having drawn attention to this point, I believe, during the Committee stage. It was a point of substance, and we have endeavoured to meet it. It was intended to apply to all land which was defined as dead ripe, and not to any other.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am not seeking to apply it to any other.

Mr. Silkin

Well, we are on common ground there. The particular instances which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave, and the cases that would fall under his Amendments, are cases which do not come within the dead ripe provision. They are not cases of dead ripe land, and, therefore, they do not qualify for the full compensation, which is the reason for his Amendment. In other words, in a sense, the hon. and learned Gentleman is really seeking to extend the definition of dead ripe land laid down in Clause 78.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? He said these are not cases of dead ripe land. In any instances which I gave, I was seeking to give the case of land which was, in a colloquial sense, as dead ripe as possible—cases where land was dead ripe for development and would have been built upon, where there was a building contract in January, 1937, and where planning permission had been given, but where there was no consent under an interim development order and no consent under this Bill, because the land was now wanted for another purpose.

Mr. Silkin

Yes, I think I quite understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but the fact remains that the particular case to which I was referring does not come within the confines of Clause 78. It is a case that comes outside that Clause. What the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to do is to give the benefit of the Lords Amendment to Clause 78 to this type of case which goes outside it, and to the other types to which he referred in his further Amendment, and I am saying that that is really equivalent to extending the definition of dead ripe land. It would be unthinkable to treat this land as dead ripe for the purpose of compulsory acquisition and not to treat it as dead ripe for the purposes of dealing with Parts VI and VII. Therefore, indirectly, it is seeking to widen the definition of dead ripe land, and that I am unable to do. The definition which we have in the Bill has been carefully worked out, and I think it covers all proper cases, and that other cases will qualify for a share of the £300 million.

Mr. Molson

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him a question? I am surprised at the argument which the Minister is using. If I have followed the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, it is that, owing to the actual wording of this Amendment, certain land, which will be excluded from this benefit, cannot logically be differentiated from land which is going to gain that benefit, and, therefore, while the Minister is right in a purely technical sense, of course, this Amendment is going rather too wide in the definition of dead ripe land. Would the Minister address his argument to what I think is the point of my hon. and learned Friend—that we cannot fairly draw a distinction and say that land is dead ripe because the permission to develop has been given under subsequent legislation, and to exclude from the defini- tion of dead ripe land cases where the permission was given under earlier legislation?

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Silkin

It is simply that one has to draw the line somewhere, and that, in this case, the line has been drawn in Clause 78 of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that some date ought to be put in, as, otherwise, a consent obtained in 1930 would——

Mr. Molson

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is very important. The word "ripe," as applied to land, is derived from the analogy of fruit, and one can quite understand that a time limit has to be imposed, because all fruit will, ultimately, become ripe. But if fruit has become ripe, then, presumably, it does not cease to be ripe at some subsequent time. Surely, a great injustice is going to be done to owners of land where permission has been given on a previous occasion, but does not happen to have been given under this subsequent legislation. The argument is that land which was ripe in the past is going to be ripe in the future. This is land which has been ripe for some time past.

Mr. Silkin

One must make up one's mind as to the proper definition of "ripe," and, having done that, land which does not conform to that definition must be regarded as not ripe Land which was once ripe need not always conform to that definition. In the case of land, in respect of which a consent to develop was obtained many years ago, and, which, in fact, has not been developed—and ex hypothesi, nothing will have happened to that land—it does not follow that such land is necessarily dead ripe for the purpose of Clause 78. Before it becomes dead ripe something must have been done to the land to make it dead ripe, and if the necessary requirements have not been complied with it will not be dead ripe. I do not think I can put it higher than that. A recent planning consent is all right, but a consent obtained a long time ago is not.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The right hon. Gentleman talks about a recent planning consent. Supposing that land was cleared at the outbreak of war and that the owners wanted to resume building on that land, which was stopped by the war, and that then, in conformity with a planning scheme, it was zoned for industrial purposes, would the right hon. Gentleman consider that as a recent consent? If he did, he would have to amend this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Silkin

If the hon. and learned Gentleman means that a consent had been obtained, and not merely that the land was zoned, "Yes."

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In 1939?

Mr. Silkin

Yes, a consent obtained in 1939.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

With the leave of the House, I would say that is just my point. A consent obtained in 1939 would not bring that land within this Amendment, because it could not be brought within it unless planning permission is given under this Bill.

Mr. Silkin

There is no reason why planning consent should not be given under this Bill if the land is properly zoned. After all, land is not ripe for development if the development proposed is inappropriate. It cannot be ripe for development if the developer wants to do something which is wrong, and, therefore, he would get no consent. I now come to the next Amendment, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises the dilemma he is in. He has assumed that when such a person applies for consent, the local authority is dishonestly going to refuse him.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I did not suggest that there would be any dishonest refusal. I said that, because of war conditions, the purpose of the site required might well have altered, and that the effect of the alteration of the purpose would mean that ripe land which was, ex hypothesi, completely ripe in 1939, and until the end of the war, is automatically made not ripe.

Mr. Silkin

I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said at one stage of his argument that a local authority might revoke a consent in order to save compensation. I should say, if that were; done, it was dishonest, and so would the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are dealing with land as it is today, and not as it was in 1939. Is it ripe today? It cannot be ripe today if the development which is proposed is development which is not appropriate, or which would not be permitted by the local authority. But, in the normal case, where a person acquired land in 1939, and got a valid consent in 1939, and the development which he proposes to carry out is appropriate today, he will get his consent from the local authority for that development. If he fails to get it, he has the right of appeal to the Minister, who will, in proper cases, allow the appeal. Therefore, the only hardship which the hon. and learned Gentleman visualises is in the case where there is a planning refusal. I say that, in that case, the owner has not discharged the onus on him to establish that his land is dead ripe. It cannot be dead ripe if he is unable to carry out the development he wishes to carry out.

On the question of revocation of consent, I take it that comes under Clause 20 of the Bill, which provides for compensation. In proper cases, the owner will be compensated. Indeed, the provision of compensation has been considerably widened, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Compensation is now being paid for all consequential loss flowing from the revocation—a plea which he himself made during the Committee stage of the Bill—and, therefore, that should go a very long way, if not the whole way, towards meeting any loss flowing from the actual revocation itself.

Mr. Manningham- Buller

Under Clause 58, as it is going to be amended, the Minister will get power to revoke. It will not be under Clause 20. Will that carry the same right for compensation?

Mr. Silkin

It will carry the same right for compensation. On the main question, I very much regret that it would, in effect, be widening the definition of "dead ripe" land, and I do not feel that it is possible to go further in that respect than we have already done.

Mr. Molson

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say exactly under which Subsection compensation would be payable in the case of revocation to which he refers? I was just looking for it, and I should like to be assured about it before we proceed further.

Mr. Silkin

I had rather assumed that revocation, whether by a Minister or by a local authority, of planning consent, would carry compensation. I do not imagine that there could be any difference, in principle, between the two, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know who is the exact authority for dealing with compensation.

Mr. Molson

The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he stands by the principle. If revocation would deprive the owner, would he regard that as being a matter in which compensation ought to be paid?

Mr. Silkin

If it is compensation which, if carried out by a local authority, would have entitled the owner to compensation, then I see no reason at all why, if it is done by a Minister, he should not equally get compensation. I assumed that was the case, but if it is not, and if there is still time, as I believe there is, I will look into the matter.

Mr. C. Williams

I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his last remarks, but I think that when we are dealing with what is almost the most vital provision in this Bill, that is to say the provision defining when land is dead ripe, we should have a rather clearer understanding of what the actual words mean than we have at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman defined "ripe" land as land ripe for the proper type of building, and as ripe in the opinion of his Department, or the local authority. That is as I understood him, and he will contradict me if I am wrong. Yet there might be land which, in 1939, was ripe for building, but because the local authority, or his Department, considered it was not ripe now for the proper kind of development, it can be claimed that it is not ripe at all. Surely, that is a rather arbitrary procedure.

Let me give a case in point. Suppose that the owners of a river bank in 1939 thought it ripe at a certain time to put in a dock and harbour, if, at the present time, the same people thought some development was proper, the powers that be can come along and say, "This land is not ripe. We think it should be used for piers and jetties, and we are not going to allow it to be used for a dock as well. If you want to use it in this way, we shall declare that it is not ripe." That seems to me to be placing an extremely arbitrary power in the hands of the Minister. It means that whatever a person may think he can do by way of development, the Minister has merely to say that the land is not ripe, and that he wants it for some other purpose, and he can stand continuously in the way of development. It seems to me that is the only possible interpretation that can be placed on the matter from the remarks made by the Minister earlier in the Debate. I say, quite frankly, that it makes one all the more sorry that this Bill was not properly worked out in the first place.

Mr. Silkin

The short answer is that it is not for the local authorities to determine whether land is dead ripe or not. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that local authorities will carry out their functions dishonestly, and will revoke consents—that is the supposition behind what he says—already given, in order to save their ratepayers, from paying compensation. I can only say that, on that assumption, the whole Bill might make nonsense. If everyone is going to act dishonestly, and give consents or allow appeals on the basis of whether compensation becomes payable or not, all the safeguards in the world are of no value. I hope we are all assuming that everyone will act in good faith, and that local authorities will not improperly revoke consents which they have given, merely to prevent the payment of compensation.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams

I did not say that I thought local authorities would do that: I merely said that it was possible.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I hope my hon. Friends on this side of the House will carry this matter to a Division. It is essential that we should protest against the activities of the Government in this respect. There has been considerable argument, and a number of points have been raised. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this Amendment which is designed to deal with the case where revocation takes place, because elsewhere in the Bill there is provision for compensation for such revocation. I have been studying the Bill to see how far that provision goes, and it is quite clear that the only power of compensation in those circumstances is in Clause 21 which, in effect, only gives power of compensation for abortive expenditure and matters of that kind. Where there is revocation, the result of which would be to deprive the owner of the land in question of fair compensation, which he would get if the land were treated as dead ripe, as it should be treated, the owner will be very seriously damnified by the refusal of the Government to accept

this Amendment. That is an intolerable state of affairs, and I, for one, will be willing to go into the Lobby to register my vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 282.

Division No. 348.] AYES. 2.18 p.m.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Raikes, H V.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Grimston, R. V Rayner, Brig R.
Beamish, Maj. T V H Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bennett, Sir P Lambert, Hon. G. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Savory, Prof. D. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Carson, E Low, Brig. A. R W. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Challen, C. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Sutcliffe, H.
Clarke, Col. R. S Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Teeling, William
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Touche, G. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. Manningham-Buller, R. E Vane, W. M F.
Crowder, Capt, John E Marples, A. E. Walker-Smith, D.
Digby, S. W. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Ward, Hon G. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D Mellor, Sir J Watt, Sir G S. Harvie
Dower, Lt. -Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Molson, A H E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Morrison, Rt Hon W S (C'nc'ster) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Drayson, G B Noble, Comdr A. H P. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Orr-Ewing, I. L
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Pitman, I J TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fraser, H C P. (Stone) Ponsonby Col. C E Mr. Drewe and Lt.-Col. Thorp.
Gage, C. Pools, O B. S. (Oswestry)
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Chamberlain, R. A Gaitskell, H. T N
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Champion, A. J Gallacher, W.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Chater, D. Ganley, Mrs. C S
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Chetwynd, G. R Gilzean, A
Alpass, J. H. Cocks, F. S. Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Coldrick, W. Goodrich, H E
Anderson, F (Whitehaven) Col lick, P. Gordon,-Walker, P. C
Attewell, H. C. Collindridge, F Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Austin, H. Lewis Collins, V. J. Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
Awbery, S. S Colman, Miss G. M Grenfell, D. R
Ayles, W H Corvedale, Viscount Grey, C. F
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Cove, W. G. Grierson, E.
Baird, J. Crawley, A Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Balfour, A. Daines, P Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Barstow, P. G Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Gunter, R. J
Barton, C. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Guy, W. H.
Battley, J. R Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Bechervaise, A E. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hale, Leslie
Benson, G. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hall, W. G
Berry, H. Deer, G. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Beswick, F. Diamond, J Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale) Dodds, N. N. Harrison, J.
Bing, G. H. C. Driberg, T. E. N. Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Blackburn, A. R. Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich) Haworth, J.
Blenkinsop, A. Dumpleton, C. W. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Blyton, W. R Durbin, L. F. M Herbison, Miss M
Boardman, H. Dye, S. Hicks G.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Ede, Rt. Hon J. C Hobson, C. R
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Edelman, M. Holman, P.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) House, G.
Braddock, T (Mitcham) Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel) Hoy, J.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Hubbard, T.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Evans, John (Ogmore) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Brown, George (Belper) Ewart, R. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Fernyhough, E Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bruce, Major D. W T Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Burden, T. W Foot, M. M. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Burke, W. A. Forman, J. C Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.) Foster, W. (Wigan) Irving, W. J.
Byers, Frank Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Castle, Mrs B. A Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Janner, B.
Jay, D. P. T. Nally, W Sparks, J A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Naylor, T. E Stephen, C.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Stubbs, A. E.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Noel-Buxton, Lady Swingler, S.
Keenan, W. Oliver, G. H. Sylvester, G O.
Kendall, W. D Paget, R. T. Symonds, A. L.
Kenyon, C. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Key, C. W. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
King, E. M Palmer, A. M. F. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Kinley, J. Pargiter, G. A Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Kirby, B. V. Parker, J, Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Layers, S. Parkin, B. T. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Lee, F. (Hulme) Paton, J. (Norwich) Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Lee, Miss J (Cannock) Pearson, A. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Leonard, W. Piratin, P Thomson, Rt. Hn G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Leslie, J. R. Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Lever, N. H. Popplewell, E. Tiffany, S.
Levy, B. W. Porter, E. (Warringtn) Tolley, L.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Porter, G. (Leeds) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G
Lindgren, G. S. Proctor, W. T Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Lipson, D. L. Pryde, D. J. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Viant, S. P.
Longden, F. Ranger, J. Wadsworth, G.
Lyne, A. W Rankin, J. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
McAdam, W. Rees-Williams, D. R Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
McAllister, G. Reeves, J. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
McEntee, V. La T. Reid, T. (Swindon) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
McGhee, H. G Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mack, J. D. Robens, A. West, D. G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
McLeavy, F. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Wigg, Col. G. E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Rogers, G. H. R. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Macpherson, T. (Romford) Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Wilkes, L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W Scollan, T. Wilkins, W. A.
Mann, Mrs. J Scott-Elliot, W. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Shackleton, E. A. A. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Sharp, Granville Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Mathers, G. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens) Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Mayhew, C. P. Shurmer, P. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Medland, H. M Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Williams, W R. (Heston)
Mellish, R. J Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J
Messer, F. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Wise, Major F J
Middleton, Mrs. L Skeffington, A. M. Woods, G. S
Mitchison, G. R Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Yates, V. F.
Monslow, W. Skinnard, F. W. Young, Sir R- (Newton)
Moody, A. S Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Morley, R. Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W.) Zilliacus, K
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Snow, Capt. J W
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Solley, L. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Sorensen, R W. Soskice, Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Moyle, A Sorensen, R W. Mr. Simmons.
Murray, J. D.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 12, at end, insert: or would have been so payable if that permission had not been revoked."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in page 58, line 12, at the end, to insert: or would have been payable if the planning permission granted since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, had been granted under Part III of this Act. We have already had some discussion on this Amendment, and therefore, I will not detain the House any longer.

Mr. Silkin

As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have had a long discussion embracing this Amendment, and, for the reasons which I have already given, I hope the House will not accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment: In page 63, line 30, at end, insert: