§ (1) This Section applies to land an interest in which is held on charitable trusts or for ecclesiastical or other charitable purposes of any description if the land is not used in any such manner as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of section eighty-four.
§ (2) The provisions of Part VI of this Act shall apply to any such interest as aforesaid in land which on the appointed day is land to which this Section applies.
§ (3) Where any land, which, on the appointed day, was land to which this Section applies ceases at any time thereafter to be such land, any development charge which shall be payable under Part VII of 920 this Act in respect of any development by virtue of which the land is used in any such manner as is mention in Subsection (1) of Section eighty-four or its use is made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land shall not, subject to the provisions of Subsection (4) of this Section, exceed the amount of any payments made under Part VI of this Act in respect of the said land, if planning permission for that development has been granted under Part III of this Act before the land ceases to be land to which this Section applies.
§ (4) Where any payment has been made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any land to which on the appointed day this Section applies and any part or parts of such land cease at any time thereafter to be such land the limitation imposed by Subsection (3) of this Section upon the amount of the development charge payable in respect of such part or parts of the said land shall apply only to the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of the development charges 921 payable in respect of all such part or parts exceeds the payment made under Part VI of this Act in respect of the whole of such land.
§ (5) Where any such interest as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section in land to which this Section applies is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day, then if the land was land to which this Section applies on the appointed day, it shall be assumed in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the said interest, that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and that the development charge payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of any such development would be limited in the manner provided in Subsection (3) and (4) of this Section.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the subject which has received a good deal of consideration both in this House and in another place. It may be for the convenience of the House if I first describe very briefly in what way the new Clause E [Land held for charitable purposes] which has been agreed to, differs from the original Clause as it left this House. A number of extensions have been made to the charity Clause so as to widen its scope and to give charities further exemptions. These have been made at the instance of educational trusts, the National Trust, Boy Scouts, etc. I think that I can summarise the changes that have been made under two heads.
The first is that the Clause in the Bill as sent from the Commons was confined to land used for charitable purposes for which there was no general demand or market, and to land contiguous or adjacent or used for an ancillary purpose. I recognise that that was a fairly limited class of land. Under the new Clause any land used for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes is now exempt from development charge and does not participate in the £300 million. Club rooms, camp grounds of youth organisations, university land, indeed, any land that is used for what is described as operational purposes under the War Damage Act, are exempt. The vicarage, which is some distance from the church, and the playing field, which is some distance from the 922 school, would be exempt although probably they were exempt when the Bill left the House. But the scope of exemption from development charge has been very much widened, and it now applies to all land used by charities for charitable purposes.
The second Amendment is that the new Clause extends to the inalienable land of the National Trust. Representations were made on behalf of the National Trust, and, although it was probable that this land was already exempt, it is now made quite clear that their inalienable land is relieved from the burden of a development charge. I imagine that up to that point there will be general agreement in the House. Indeed, the House has agreed to the new Clause, but where the issue arises as between another place and those who support the Government in this House is that the Amendment introduced into another place goes beyond operational land and seeks to treat land, which is held for investment purposes pure and simple in the same way as land which is used for the purposes of charity. All of us in this House are most sympathetic to the charities and would wish to do everything we possibly can not only to assist them, but not to frustrate them in their efforts. Many of us in this House are particularly interested in one form of charity or another. Many Members—and I am among them—are interested in educational charities. We would not wish to do anything to interfere with those educational charities which have always done a fine piece of work in the interests of education in this country.
Nevertheless, I am in great difficulty in accepting an Amendment which treats this one class of landowner differently from any other. The ground for exemption would be not the type of land and not even the purpose for which the land was to be used—because the purpose for which investment land is to be used is normally the same purpose as any other land, that is for ordinary development—but the criterion would be the character of the person who owns the land and the purpose for which he is going to use the money. The justification for exempting investment land is that the owners of that investment land are going to make good use of any benefits they derive from it, and I submit to the House that that is an impossible criterion for us to accept. If one were to be logical, one would have to 923 inquire into every person's credentials, the character of the owner of the land and what he is going to do with his money. That kind of investigation would lead as into all sorts of queer channels. That is the first ground of objection, that where the intention is to create a universal prohibition against development without consent and to impose a charge, it is quite impossible to take one category of persons of a particular kind and exempt them.
The next point of objection is that, normally, it will not be the charities themselves that will develop the land; it will be the persons to whom they lease or sell the land. They would normally be the developers, and if there were to be exemptions from development charges it would not, therefore, be to the charity to which the exemption would apply but to the proposed developer. The charity as a result would be able to charge a price or a rent for the land which would take into account and include the development charge. The charity would, therefore, benefit indirectly not directly. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) seems to find it difficult to follow, but it seems to me to be simple. If there is any difficulty I shall be glad to explain it.
The development charge is normally payable by the person who develops, not by the owner, and the normal developer would not be the charity but somebody to whom the charity sold or leased the land. The charity would benefit only indirectly or directly. This would constitute something which I know the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) opposed during the Report stage of the Bill and that is a hidden subsidy of an uncertain amount. I submit that in itself that is wrong in principle. If the charities are to be assisted, they should be assisted directly with amounts which can be clearly stated and about which this House and the country can be informed, and not by vague, uncertain and indefinite amounts which it will be quite impossible to calculate or evaluate, and which they will receive not directly, but indirectly, through persons who actually carry out the development.
There is a great deal of misconception as to the effect on the charities of the provisions of this Bill. I have heard alarmist statements as to how much certain of the university colleges are going to lose per annum. The true answer is that they 924 are going to lose nothing. Their existing income will be maintained, because nothing in this Bill affects that income. There is no charge and no tax on their existing income. Indeed, there is no reason why that income should not increase as the result of planning and their values may increase as leases fall in. There is no reason why charities should not be able to charge, subject, of course, to the Rent Restriction Acts, increased rent in accordance with the present day values. Therefore, if anything, not only will the incomes of the charities not fall in any way as a result of this Bill, but they will tend to increase with the decrease in the value of money, just as other commodities have increased in cost. As soon as they can convert their rents and incomes into current values, so will their incomes increase.
Where they lose is in the prospective profits which they might have realised as the result of the sale or rent of their investment land. That is to say, they lose in their capacity as landowners, but only where the land is undeveloped. Where it is developed they retain their present incomes so that they are affected, if at all, within the very narrow field of undeveloped land which they own for the purpose of selling one day or arranging for it to be developed at a profit.
Charities own a good deal of undeveloped land, much of which they have no intention of developing and never have had, and such land is not affected so long as it is used for the purpose of the charity. Further, land which is required for the purpose of future development of the charity and so on, is also not affected. As I say, it is only in a very limited field that they will be affected, and that is a field where they stand in the position of every other landowner in the country. For these reasons, therefore, much as I sympathise with the position of the charities, and much as I would wish to help them in any way, I find myself unable to agree with the Lords in this Amendment, and I invite the House to accept the Clause which has just been passed, as an earnest of the Government's desire to assist the charities to the fullest possible extent and not to press the matter beyond what I think is appropriate.
§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it 925 quite clear that the new Clause already passed exempts the inalienable land of the National Trust? I see no reference to this in the Clause in question.
§ Mr. Silkin
It does do so, and I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance with complete confidence.
§ Mr. H. Strauss
The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying something in explanation both of the new Clause which we recently passed without discussion and that which is now the subject of his Motion that we should disagree with the Lords. I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but it is an extremely important matter as I think the House generally recognises. It is also a matter of very considerable complexity, although I think the real principle at issue is fairly simple. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the great changes that have been made between the Clause as originally introduced and that which we have just added to the Bill. It is over four months since I first raised this matter in Committee upstairs on behalf of the landowning charities and fought the Clause in its original form. The right hon. Gentleman was not too sympathetic towards my criticisms of the provisions that it then contained, but, nevertheless, on the Report stage he introduced certain Amendments which could not be discussed owing to the guillotine. When that Clause went to another place it was subjected to much criticism and its weaknesses were recognised and admitted by the Lord Chancellor himself, who, on the Report stage in another place, introduced the Clause which we have just passed.
Let me say at once on behalf of those charities whose case I have endeavoured to state that that new Clause is a great advance and is much more satisfactory than the Clause which was contained in the Bill originally. As one who has long served on the executive committee of the National Trust perhaps I may add my personal pleasure at the provision it contains with regard to the National Trust. Nevertheless, it remains unsatisfactory because it does not deal by way of exemption with the investments of charities as they have been dealt with for more than 250 years in our legislation. Perhaps I should say that a number of charities have 926 joined together for the purpose of consulting and giving advice to the right hon. Gentleman's Department and other Departments when they think that legislation vitally affects them, and I have had the benefit of their advice. They include not only the universities and their colleges but such institutions as Christ's Hospital, the Salvation Army, the Foundling Hospital and many others. Although what I have to say applies, I think, to all charities generally, I feel sure that the House will not think it improper if I have particularly in mind the educational charities about which I know most.
Everyone will accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no one in any quarter would wish to injure these great institutions. I would go further and say that it is the duty of the Government in introducing a Bill of this kind so to arrange matters that they do not in fact injure them. I believe that to be quite possible, but it has not been achieved unless we provide exceptional treatment for the investments of these charities in the same way that, over a very long period, all parties when they have formed the Government of this country have recognised the need and have given exceptional treatment. To mention only a few Acts, the Land Tax Act, 1693, more than 250 years ago, which was the very beginning of our modern system of direct taxation, exempted charities. The Income Tax Act, 1842, gave these charities exemption from tax on the income of their endowments. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, exempted them from the corporation tax to which other corporations were liable, and the Finance Act, 1927, exempted them from taxation on profits from certain business undertakings. But the example which I think the House will consider the most cogent and the most interesting was that set by the late Philip Snowden. When he introduced his Finance Act in 1931 imposing land value taxes, he gave total exemption to the charities.
What has been the basis of this very long history and tradition of exemption of the investments of these charities? It is, of course, the use made by the charities of their resources. In the contemplation of the law and of Parliament, their funds were devoted to the benefit of the community. It is not necessary in order to benefit the community that funds should pass through Whitehall. It is per- 927 fectly possible for the law and Parliament to take the view that the community receives direct benefit from letting the charities receive the income of their investments without deduction. The land investments of charities have been important for a very long period. Land is of more importance to them than ever today, because there are numerous matters which contribute to make it more important. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fall in the value of the £, and I might mention legislation dealing with covenants, and so forth.
All those matters make the land of very great importance today. When these charities say that they are going to suffer loss from the treatment of these investments by the Bill they are a most expert body speaking. They have records of their investments lasting over centuries. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to tell them that their fear that they will suffer loss is imaginary. Their long history and experience have shown them that investment in land is of vital importance for two reasons which have operated so continuously as to establish something in the nature of a natural law. One has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and it is the tendency of the currency to depreciate. The other is one which will be familiar to all people interested in public affairs or who have anything to do with charities, and that is the tendency for the needs and requirements of the charities themselves to increase.
It would not have been possible for these charities to satisfy the increasing needs of the community had it not been that they habitually and successfully invested in land. I must mention one thing in passing, because the Minister may have tended to mislead the House. I am sure that it was not his intention to do so. If the Amendment is accepted none of these charities, in regard to any of their land, will be free from planning control. Though the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to mislead the House, I think he gave the erroneous impression that some form of exemption from planning control would follow the acceptance of the Amendment.
In all quarters of the House there will be a very general hope that the charities, in their investments last year, will have preferred land to "Dalton's 2½ per- 928 cents." What would be the effect of diminishing the resources of the charities? It would be one of four things. It might compel them to reduce their benefits. Nobody wants to do that. It might compel some of them, if their deeds permitted, to charge for services which they at present give freely, or to charge more than their present charges. I am sure that not one of us wants that. Thirdly, it might compel them to seek to raise money from the public. Everybody must know the present difficulty of following that course. The fourth alternative is to seek increased assistance from the State. I cannot say that it will not be more necessary in the future than it has been in the past for the State to give assistance. There is, however, a desire in all quarters that these ancient institutions shall retain as much independence as possible. If we do not desire to drive them unnecessarily to seek help from the State we must give them the same protection as this House has given charities for the last 250 years.
What is the nature of the Amendment? It only affects the land which the charities are holding on the appointed day. It does not enable them to go into the market and buy fresh land which will benefit. It says that, as regards their investments in land on the appointed day, they shall in effect have exemption from development charges in excess of the sums they receive in compensation. It may be true that development will generally be carried out not by the charity but by others, but that imposes no insuperable difficulty. The Government know that there is a principle for which we are contending, and that there is a difference between land held by the trustees of charities for charitable purposes and land held by a private owner for his own purposes.
There is another matter which should be of Ministerial concern that I ought to mention. Charities have not been completely uncontrolled in the way in which they make their investments. I would mention one Statute of great importance to many of them, the Universities and College Estates Act of 1925, which covers Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and the colleges of those three universities, as well as some great schools. All their transactions in land take place with Ministerial approval. The Minister is the Minister of Agriculture. In many cases some of those 929 charities paid a high price for land with considerable development value, with Ministerial approval. In many cases they have refrained, rightly, and again with Ministerial approval, from taking quick profits or any profits hitherto.
I put to fair-minded Members in all quarters of the House a simple proposition. Where a charity has invested in land in perfect good faith, on the best professional advice and with express Ministerial approval, that charity ought not to suffer as a direct result of the Government's legislative action. In another place, so great has been the tradition of all parties to recognise the position of these great charities that there was collaboration in the matter among most distinguished representatives of my party and the Liberal Party. The Amendment we are considering was moved by Lord Samuel. I should like to record my gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for the interest he has shown in this matter. I think he has tried to study the position of these charities. In the Clause that he has moved, which we recently passed, he has improved the position, but in the answer he gave to the noble Lords who sought to insert this Clause he really made an inadequate reply, because he suggested even more directly than the right hon. Gentleman just now that somehow they were claiming some sort of exemption from planning control. They were not.
I thank the House for the patience with which they have heard the case put for these charities. I admit that, though the new Clause which the Government have moved and inserted is an improvement, I am asking for more. I am asking for more on grounds which will, I believe, appeal to men in all parties and to men who love our history and honour these ancient institutions, some of which are among the greatest glories of Christian civilisation. Last year I heard these words in Sheffield University, one of the universities I have the honour to represent, from John Masefield. I would read a few sentences which he then spoke:There are few earthly things more splendid than a University. In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values, when the dams are down and the floods are making misery, when every future looks somewhat grim and every ancient foothold has become something of a quagmire, wherever a University stands, it stands and shines; wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged on to full and fair 930 inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs.There are few earthly things more beautiful than a University. It is a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see; where seekers and learners alike, banded together in the search for knowledge, will honour thought in all its finer ways, will welcome thinkers in distress or in exile, will uphold ever the dignity of thought and learning and will exact standards in these things. They give to the young in their impressionable years, the bond of a lofty purpose shared, of a great corporate life whose links will not be loosed until they die.I believe that if there are any institutions in this country we should all feel it wise not to injure they are the universities, both ancient and modern, the colleges and the great institutions of learning. I have pleaded for a cause which I admit I have very much at heart. I beg the Government at this eleventh hour to accept the principle for which I plead. It is for that principle, and not for any exact wording in the Clause, that I shall urge this House to divide. Let the Government if they wish, if they do not like any of the words, produce a better form of words in another place, but let the principle be followed, a principle which our predecessors of all parties have followed for more than 250 years. Let us not inflict on these glorious institutions a wanton and a needless injury.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Sir Alan Herbert (Oxford University)
I would like briefly to support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). This Bill is not my favourite sort of Bill and I will not bandy words about the details of the Amendment or any other part of the Bill with the Minister, especially as he is not here. I have been present at a great many meetings of the charities concerned—not only the educational charities. I have read every word of the Debates in the House of Lords. I am not going to say "in another place." It is the House of Lords we are talking about.
I am absolutely satisfied that a great wrong is being done to these charities—not only the educational charities but many others—unwittingly and unwisely. I should assure the Minister if he were here that if he had been present at the meetings of the charities, they would have been somewhat astonished to learn that 931 they were not going to lose money but, as I gather from him, be more profitable as a result of this Bill. That is not the impression of those charities. As I said, I do not want to bandy words. I want to say, first, that I support my hon. and learned Friend very much in the thanks which he has given to the Lord Chancellor for the very fine part he played in this matter in the House of Lords. I know that he has dealt with the matter most sympathetically and has improved the situation. But I want to press on the Front Bench that the last avenue is not closed. It is still possible for the Front Bench to change their minds and still possible for another Amendment to be made in another place. I appeal to the Front Bench not to make this their last word because, after all, does anybody in this House want to take money away from any charitable institution, which is all we are, in fact, doing?
§ Mr. McAllister (Rutherglen)
Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I followed the proceedings in another place with great interest. In the last stages of a great complicated Bill which has been full of technicalities, it is a great pleasure to get one part of it which deals with entirely human aspects of town planning and community living. Everybody reading the Debate in another place would be impressed not only by the noble Lord, Viscount Samuel, who put forward this Amendment, but by the general consensus of opinion that here was something quite outside the ordinary conditions of land ownership and land use. Everybody was delighted to see the new provisions in the Clause which we have just inserted, which certainly ameliorate the position. It is good to know that charities using land and continuing to use it as at present are exempt entirely from the development charge but are equally not entitled to compensation. It is wise that the inalienable land of the National Trust should be equally exempt, but the Minister was frank when he said that where charities lose is in the prospective sale of their investment land. He could not have been clearer. That is exactly the case. There is no other way in which the charities suffer as a result of the Clause we have just inserted.
We have gone four-fifths of the way, but I am not quite sure that meets the 932 deepest feelings of hon. Members with regard to charities, universities, the great trusts, the Salvation Army and many other charitable organisations. There was a great deal in what was said by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that in all our legislation since ever charities were recognised by the nation as something unique in the life of the nation, we have had this exemption. We nave recognised it from the first of the Land Acts down to the Entertainment Duty regulations which continue. But we should remember that this is not a taxation business, and for that reason it ought perhaps to be easier to exempt charities than if we were imposing a new tax. One can visualise circumstances in which a charity might be very seriously affected by the Clause as it is now amended.
Take, for example, the pioneer work of the Salvation Army in regard to what they call "Eventide Homes"—homes for aged people. Suppose under the Bill the bit of land on which their old people's homes are situated were zoned for industrial purposes and industry went to that neighbourhood. If industry went to that neighbourhood, it might be true that they continued in the use of that land for their homes, but if they said, "This area has been so changed in character that it is no longer suitable for old people's homes," and if they wanted to sell the land and re-create the institution in a more pleasant environment, they would not get the value, and they might have to pay a much higher price for the institution in its new surroundings, and thereby they would suffer severely. I know that the Minister has tried, to the best of his ability, to meet all these points of view, and I do not think anybody suggests that in his heart he does not agree with us in this very human issue, but I would join with the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) in pleading with the Government, if they can, to think about it again and, if it is possible to introduce in another place something that will clear up this one point, not only the House but the whole country will feel that we have done something that is just, equitable and charitable.
§ The Attorney-General
I think the House recognises that we have given the most anxious, the most careful and, indeed, the most sympathetic consideration 933 to the position of charities as affected by this Bill. I think the House recognises also that we have given the charities not half a loaf but four-fifths of a loaf in this matter. Whilst all of us must sympathise with the view put forward on behalf of charitable institutions, I thought that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), in his eloquent oration, was really putting his case a little too high; indeed, I hope he will not think this impertinent but I have never heard a mountain made out of a mole-hill with more eloquence than the hon. and learned Member succeeded in using. From what he said, one would have imagined that the Government were involved in some grave and new attack upon the charitable principle in this country. Nothing of the kind.
All we are seeking to do in this Clause, as the Bill now stands, is to apply the principle which was applied to charities by the Coalition Government in 1943, when they distinguished between operational land and investment land; required contributions for war damage payments in respect of the latter, and exempted the former. It is exactly that principle which we are seeking to apply here. The hon. and learned Member sought to draw some analogy between the exemptions which charities enjoy from ordinary taxation, and their proposed exemption from the proposed betterment charges and Part VII of the Bill. I am not at all sure that the analogy is a sound one. If the activities of a charity are held to be for the public benefit, and it is on that basis only that the exemption arises, it may be thought to be in the public interest to exempt them from contributing to the ordinary revenues. This, of course, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) said, is not a taxing Bill in the ordinary sense, and it by no means follows that it would be in the public interest that charities should be allowed to retain, not for operational purposes but for investment purposes, what in practice and effect would become a right to use their land in a different and a larger way than was possessed by ordinary owners.
That is, in effect, the result of the extraordinarily complicated provisions of the new Clause which was inserted in another place. I am not sure whether I have followed all the intricacies of the new 934 Clause, which would be exceedingly difficult in practice to administer, but the charity or, indeed, in some cases even the purchaser from the charity, where development permission had been obtained, would be able to develop land in the knowledge that the development charge which might be levied upon him could not exceed the amount which had been paid, it might be, long before under Part VI. This is where questions of planning control, in practice, arise. That would have the result that the Central Land Board, whose duty it will be to control development over the country as a whole by selling development rights for a small amount in one area where it wants to encourage development, and for a larger amount in another where it wants to put a brake on it, would find its hands in some measure tied by the fact that when it came to deal with land which, quite fortuitously, so far as it was concerned, happened to be or to have been owned by a charity, it would be unable to charge more by way of development charge than had been paid by way of compensation under Part VI.
That is really quite foreign to the whole scheme of this Bill in so far as the Bill involves—as it does in all its provisions, including these betterment provisions—a scheme for controlling and securing consistency in the development of land. That is the scheme. The Central Land Board becomes, in effect, the owner of all the land in the country, entitled to lease or to sell development rights as a good landlord, promoting the development of the estate in the interests of the State as a whole. A good landlord, in dealing with the disposition of the various parts of his estate, would no doubt have regard in negotiating the terms on which the land was to be developed, not to the persons who were to develop it, but to the nature of the development which was to take place. Indeed, only an hour or two ago we agreed to the insertion of a Clause which provides that there is to be no discrimination in regard to development charges between two applicants, and what, therefore, the Board must have regard to is not the applicant, but what is the nature of the proposed development.
If the Board, in seeking to discourage a particular form of development in one area at a particular time says, "We are not prepared to sell the development rights to you except for a very high 935 figure "it would, to say the least, be manifestly inconvenient if they could be met by the would-be developer saying, "You can't do that to me; although I have received by way of compensation nothing more than my neighbour has received, I happen to be the conductor of a cats' home—or a society for promoting the doctrines of Joanna Southcott—and you cannot charge me by way of development charges more than I have received, it may be a long time ago, by way of compensation under Part VI of the Bill." That would be quite inconsistent with the general scheme of this Bill.
If charities require State assistance—one ought not to shut one's eyes to it, that is really what this Clause would give them—it ought to be direct, open assistance, the extent and amount of which depends on the activities of the charities and their need for financial help. It ought not to be a hidden subsidy which results in their securing, it may be, substantial financial benefit regardless of whether they need the money or not. It may be that some charities in the future
§ will suffer some loss through being unable to secure the full value of development and of changes from the existing user of their investment land. If that be so, if they require assistance, the proper way to get it is by direct financial assistance from the State, and not by this indirect or hidden subsidy. For these reasons, I am afraid that, although we regret it, we must persist in the attitude we have taken up to this Clause.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Sir A. Herbert
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman describe protection from confiscation as a hidden subsidy?
§ The Attorney-General
I do not take the view that there is any question of confiscation here. Many people criticise this Bill for the fact that it does not involve nationalisation of the land. What is in fact done under the Bill is that the State are purchasing development rights and paying compensation for them.
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 44.937
|Division No. 352.]||AYES||[7.01 p. m|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Corvedale, Viscount||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Cove, W. G.||Hale, Leslie|
|Allen, A. C, (Bosworth)||Crossman, R. H. S.||Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Daines, P||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Harrison, J.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Attewell, H. C.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Haworth, J.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Diamond, J||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)|
|Barstow. P. G.||Dodds, N. N.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Barton, C.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Hewitson, Capt. M|
|Battley, J. R.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Hicks, G.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Dumpleton, C. W.||Hobson, C. R.|
|Belcher, J. W.||Durbin, E. F. M.||Holman, P.|
|Benson, G.||Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.||House, G.|
|Berry, H.||Edelman, M||Hoy, J.|
|Beswick, F||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Hubbard, T.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Binns, J.||Evans, John (Ogmore)||Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)|
|Blackburn, A. R.||Ewart, R.||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Field, Captain W. J.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Blyton, W R||Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Foot, M. M.||Irving, W. J.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Forman, J. C.||Janner, B.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Jay, D. P T.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Gaitskell, H. T N.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)|
|Bruce, Major D. W. T||Gallacher, W.||Jones, J H. (Bolton)|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)|
|Castle, Mrs B. A||Gibson, C. W||Keenan, W.|
|Chamberlain, R A||Gilzean, A.||Kenyon, C.|
|Chater, D.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Goodrich, H. E.||Kinley, J.|
|Cobb, F. A.||Gordon-Walker, P C.||Lavers, S.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J|
|Collick, P.||Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Collindridge, F.||Grey, C. F.||Leonard, W.|
|Collins, V. J.||Grierson, E.||Leslie, J. R.|
|Colman, Miss G. M.||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Levy, B. W.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N W)||Gunter R. J||Lewis, A W J (Upton)|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Pearl, Thomas F.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|McAdam, W.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|McEntee, V. La T||Price, M Philips||Symonds, A. L.|
|McGhee, H G.||Proctor, W. T.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Mack, J. D.||Pryde, D. J.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|McLeavy, F.||Ranger, J.||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)|
|MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Rankin, J.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Rees-Williams, D. R.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Reeves, J.||Tiffany, S.|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G|
|Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)||Robens, A.||Viant, S. P.|
|Marquand, H A.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Robertson, J J. (Berwick)||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Mathers, G.||Rogers, G. H. R.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Medland, H. M.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Weitzman, D.|
|Middleton, Mrs. L||Scollan, T.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Mitchison, G. R||Sharp, Granville||Wigg, Col. G. E.|
|Monslow, W||Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Morgan, Dr H. B.||Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.||Wilkes, L.|
|Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Simmons, C. J.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Skeffington, A. M.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Murray, J. D.||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Skinnard, F. W.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Williams, W R. (Heston)|
|Noel-Buxton, Lady||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)||Willis, E.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)||Wyatt, W|
|Orbach, M.||Solley, L. J.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Paget, R. T.||Sorensen, R. W.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.||Zilliacus K.|
|Pargiter, G. A||Sparks, J. A.|
|Paton, J. (Norwich)||Stephen, C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Herbert, Sir A. P.||Smithers Sir W.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Low, Brig. A. R W.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)|
|Byers, Frank||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Carson, E,||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Challen, C.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Vane, W M. F.|
|Channon, H.||Molson, A H E.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Nield, B. (Chester)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|D[...]ayson, G. B||Raikes, H. V.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Rayner, Brig. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gage, C.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.|
|George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 111 in, line 27, at end, insert: