HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1875-93
Mr. Buchanan

I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out "commencement of this Act," and to insert "appointed day."

As the existing planning Acts have been repealed as from the appointed day, and as the existing planning Acts system will cease to operate, it has been thought better to bring the provisions of Clause 3 into force as from the appointed day instead of from the date of the passing of the Bill. There is nothing to prevent a local authority from going ahead with this work in spite of this provision.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

It may be that, in fact, local authorities will go ahead, but I am afraid that if they read this Bill carefully, they will not go ahead. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's reasons as being good in the case of the Amendment to line 17, where it is proposed to leave out "commencement of this Act" and to insert "appointed day." However, they are not good reasons for doing it at line 14. If this Amendment is made, the Clause will read: As soon as may be after the appointed day, every local planning authority shall carry out a survey … That means that they must not start until the appointed day. If the Clause is left as it stands, it reads: As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, every local planning authority shall carry out a survey. Then they are not only allowed, but encouraged, to go ahead straight away. We all know that their resources in manpower and skilled assistance are limited. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want them to get ahead at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, I should have thought he would have dropped the first Amendment, but would have insisted on the second. That would give them an extra six or nine months to conclude their job. Even with that extra time. it is very doubtful if they could do it. I suspect that some one, having seen that it was necessary to change the wording at line 17, also changed it at line 14 without a great deal of thought. I suggest that it would be very much better to drop this Amendment and to proceed with the next one.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison

I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is a difficult matter for us to be able to assess the importance of this Amendment until we know when the appointed day is to be. If we knew when it was to be, we could assess much more accurately the importance of this Amendment.

Mr. McAllister

I wish to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) in his suggestion that it is unwise to press the first Amendment. I should have thought everybody would wish these surveys to go ahead as quickly as possible. It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that there is an acute shortage of planning staff. The work of carrying out these surveys will take a very long time. The sooner they are started, the better it will be. There may be some reasons for this Amendment, but it is very difficult to discover them by reading the Clause. 1 would like the Secretary of State to give this matter further thought.

Mr. Buchanan

I have consulted the powers that be on this matter—[[Interruption.] Why should we not consult people about this?

Mr. Henderson Stewart

The "powers that be."

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan

What I mean is that J have consulted the officials. I should think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would do me the credit of saying that I am as little in anybody's power as any hon. Member. I have consulted the officials who guide me in these matters, and they take the view that it would be administratively difficult if this Amendment were dropped. They take the view that on the appointed day, salaries and other considerations should be fixed. This is not a political point. It is one of administration. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) said that it would help if we knew when the appointed day is to be. I will answer him quite frankly. We are working in order to make a start early in the New Year. We have not fixed a date, but it is hoped that the appointed day will be in the early part of next year. I will discuss this matter with my advisers. They advise me that it is necessary to have this wording for the purpose of uniformity in connection with salaries, etc. If the Clause were left as it is it would lead to confusion. When the Secretary of State examines this matter, he can look at the arguments and make a decision.

Mr. McAllister

It may be that there are excellent technical and administrative reasons for this Amendment. However, might I recall the action of Lord Reith when he told the local authorities to go ahead in preparation for legislation which might follow?

Mr. Buchanan

It is our intention to circularise local authorities on this matter. If this Amendment is passed, it will not in any way preclude authorities from going ahead with the surveys as quickly as they wish. One knows that some local authorities are alleged to move too quickly, and others are alleged to move too slowly. It will be our purpose in guiding the local authorities to say that they can go on preparing their surveys long before the appointed day.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move in page 3, line 38, to leave out from the beginning to "by," in line 40.

This Amendment is part of a series dealing with the designation of land by a development plan as land subject to compulsory acquisition. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if they were discussed together. The Amendments are in lines 41, 42 and 43 of page 3; and in lines 12, 14, and 22 of page 4. Broadly speaking, they are drafting Amendments.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

In case it is thought that the House is unanimous on this, I suggest that though we on this side of the House would not object to the Amendments in page 3 being discussed together, we would prefer those in page 4 to be taken singly, because they raise extremely important questions.

The Lord Advocate

I will take whatever is the most convenient course for hon. Members. The Amendments in page 3 hang together. They are really a redraft of this part of the Clause. I agree that hon. Members opposite have a point in regard to page 4. The first two Amendments to page 3, those dealing with lines 41 and 42, deal with the designation of land for the purpose of a Minister, local authority or statutory undertaking. As the Clause stands, it provides that any land required by a Minister, local authority or statutory undertaker may be designated. We think that it would be better if the designation applied to land allocated by the plan for the purposes of the functions of a Minister, local authority or statutory undertaker. That is what these two Amendments provide. The Amendment to line 43 is purely drafting.

So far as page 4 is concerned, the Amendment in line 12 provides that a development plan may designate, as land subject to compulsory acquisition, land which, in the opinion of the local authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing development in the manner proposed by the plan. Under the Clause as it stands, land may be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition where, in the opinion of the local authority, it is likely to require compulsory acquisition. Where land is designated, it does not necessarily follow that it will be compulsorily acquired, but, if the owner is willing to develop it in accordance with the plan, or will sell it at a reasonable price for that purpose, compulsory acquisition would obviously be unnecessary, and that is why we suggest this change as an improvement. The Amendment to line 14, I think, raises an issue in which hon. Members opposite are particularly interested. In effect, it provides a definition of the area of comprehensive development.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Reid

On a point of Order. Are we to have one discussion on all these complicated questions, because certainly, we on this side of the House do not agree to that, though we may have to put up with it?

Mr. Speaker

I was wondering how we could deal with this matter to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's convenience I do not know how to deal with these Amendments unless we take them separately. If we can deal with those to page 3, and then with those to page 4, I think that would be the more convenient method.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after "undertakers," to insert "any land allocated by the plan."

I have dealt with this and the following two Amendments in my explanation.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

There is a matter of some importance concerned with these Amendments, and, particularly the second one. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what that Amendment means, because, frankly, I do not know. The drafting of Subsection (2. b) will now, I think, be as follows: (6) designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by any Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers, any land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions"— So far, that is clear enough, and then, in brackets— (including any land which that Minister of authority or those undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment under than this Act). I fail to understand the purpose of that parenthesis. If it is only intended to mean that there shall not be allocated in the plan anything which a Minister could not acquire, well, that makes sense, but that is not quite what it says, and I am wondering whether it is not opening the door to an allocation of land in the plan, not on the grounds that a Minister is authorised to acquire it or because he might want it immediately, but only on the grounds that he could be authorised to acquire it. I cannot see the purpose of putting in those words, and I would ask that the inclusion of the words in parentheses should be reconsidered.

The drafting of this Subsection has now got into something of a tangle. It always did suffer from trying to compress too much into a few lines, and we very often find that, when trying to compress a lot of ideas into a few words, they do not fit very well and that the result is somewhat confusing. I think that we are here trying to put enough material for two or three Subsections into one. I hope that all that is meant is that there shall not be allocated on the plan anything that could not be compulsorily acquired. That could be one meaning, but the Subsection goes on to mix it up, and it seems to me that it may mean the designation of a great deal of land that ought not to be designated at all at that stage, and I should be glad if the Lord Advocate could explain what the purpose of those words in parentheses really is.

The Lord Advocate

There is nothing sinister about this, I can assure the House. It is simply to make clear that, in addition to what a Minister or an authority can do under this Act, they will also be allowed to do under another Act. Its purpose is to include any land which the Minister or the authority or these undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act. They are authorised to acquire compulsorily under this Act, and that is the first of its provisions. Then, they could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any other enactment. That is really all there, is in it. In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I will certainly have a look at it again, but I do assure him and the House that we are not intending to do anything but make a drafting improvement in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 42, at end, insert: (including any land which that Minister or authority or those undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act).

In line 43 leave out from beginning, to end of line 10, on page 4, and insert: (c) designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority—

  1. (i) any land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development (including any land therein which is allocated by the plan for any such purpose as is mentioned in paragraph (b)of this Subsection."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out, is likely to require," and to insert, "ought to be subject to."

This Amendment provides that the development plan may designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition land which, in the opinion of the local authority, ought to be subject to that compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing its use in the manner proposed by the plan. That is a new test. In the Clause as it stands, the test is slightly different, and it is whether, in the opinion of the local authority, the land is likely to require compulsory acquisition. This seems to be an improvement which I thought would rather have commended itself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). Where land is designated, it does not necessarily follow that it will be compulsorily acquired, because, if the owner is willing to develop the land in accordance with the plan or is willing to sell it at a reasonable price for the purpose, obviously, compulsory acquisition will not be necessary. That is why it has been thought that a proper test of the need is whether it ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition rather than likely to require compulsory acquisition.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

It may seem some what meticulous to go into the niceties of language in this connection, but I think the House will realise that there is a very important question behind this, because if one thing emerged from our discussions upstairs, it was that the designating of land was extremely harmful for the time being, both to the owner and to the public interest. During the interval between designation and acquisition, not only does the market of land contract, and, therefore, the price fall, but obviously nobody is going to develop land which is designated and subject to acquisition, because the land may be taken the next day. We have an Amendment on the Order Paper to deal with that, and I trust that we shall have an opportunity to discuss it later. If this Bill is not to do immense damage, it is essential that we should limit to the utmost possible extent the amount of land designated at any one time, and should say that there should be the shortest possible interval between the decision that it may be wanted and the decision that it is wanted. The question, therefore, is what is the best and the most limiting form of wording to put in this very vague Subsection. As it now stands, the Sub section reads: any other land which, in the opinion of the local planning authority, is likely to require compulsory acquisition … That seems to suggest that it will not be properly developed unless compulsorily acquired. We raised this question in Committee, but I am bound to say that the wording which it is proposed to substitute is a good deal worse because, in the opinion of the local planning authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition … seems to my mind to mean nothing at all, unless one knows the political views of the planning authorities. To what is the word "ought" to be related? It should be related to some principle which works in the mind of the planning authority. When we are dealing with what "ought to be" compulsorily acquired, we are getting extremely close to purely political considerations. Hon. Members opposite may say that every piece of land ought to be acquired. Some hon. Members on this side of the House may say that very little should be acquired. Some of us may take a middle view, and say that land ought only to be acquired in limited circumstances, but not in others. Every section of opinion in the House would relate the word "ought" to a different criterion, and, to a very large extent, that criterion would be interpreted according to how far to the Right or Left our general political views happen to be. Therefore, it seems to me to force upon a planning authority which does not want to operate on political grounds, a criterion which as public administrators, they would rather not have.

If the Lord Advocate wants to use the word "ought," he should say "ought" on some criterion or other, and not leave it in the air. I have no doubt that he is tired of looking for the right wording here. My own view is that the conception of the thing being wrong, probably no right wording exists. He may not find an ideal wording, but he will find a wording which is both better than that in the Bill already, and a great deal better than the words of the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that he will undertake to apply his mind again to this matter in the light of what I have just said, because if we put in the words on the Order Paper we shall be asking for a good deal of trouble in a matter which ought to be as clear and concise as we can possibly make it, if we are not to hamper the development of great areas of our country.

The Lord Advocate

I said that I was prepared to look again at the drafting of this Clause, and I will certainly look at this particular point also. However, I am not holding out any great hope of meeting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's wishes, because it seems to me that the criterion as to whether land ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition should be judged in the light of the plan. That is the standard. I will certainly look at the matter again.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, at the end, to insert: (3) For the purposes of this Section a development plan may define as an area of comprehensive development any area which in the opinion of the local planning authority should be developed or redeveloped as a whole, whether for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage or conditions or bad layout or obsolete development, or for the purpose of providing for the relocation of population or industry or the replacement of open space in the course of the development or redevelopment of any other area, or for any other purpose specified in the plan; and land may be included in any area so defined, and designated as subject to compulsory acquisition in accordance with the provision of Subsection (2) of this Section whether or not provision is made by the plan for the development or redevelopment of that particular land. This Amendment provides a definition of the area of comprehensive development. These words are really inserted for convenience, as the expression is used in later parts of the Bill.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

I should not take exception to the first six lines of this Amendment once one realised that we were bound to accept something of the kind, but I take serious exception to the last four lines. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you would consider my moving the Amendment to line 8 of the proposed Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Speaker

That was in my mind. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Reid

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 8, to leave out "and," and to insert "but no."

Mr. Speaker

I should say that 1 think the three Amendments to the proposed Amendment all hang together.

Mr. Reid

I think they do. Certainly the first two necessarily hang together, and I think that the third one does—at least, there is one point involved. I can discuss the matter in one speech. If we are to have an area of comprehensive redevelopment, I accept for the moment the view that the whole proprietary rights of that area ought to be acquired at one time by the authority which is charged with the duty of redevelopment. I will not repeat what I said a few moments ago, but it is very unfortunate if the interval between designation and acquisition is too long. I am very apprehensive that as housing development is slowing down, so the date at which we can expect the development of these areas is being postponed, and I am afraid that this Bill may do more damage than it otherwise would, by reason of there being a maximum interval between the first designation and the actual redevelopment. Therefore, perhaps, one has to look a little more narrowly at what is being done.

Mr. McAllister

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether the word "no" in his Amendment to the proposed Amendment is a misprint for the word "not"? At the moment the Clause cannot be read intelligibly if amended as suggested.

Mr. Reid

I will try to read it as amended: land may be included in any area so defined, but not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.…

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a misprint, because there are only four lines between the figures 5 and 10.

Mr. Reid

At any rate, perhaps it is unnecessary to get the grammar exactly right, because I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he accepts the Amendment, will put it in order, if it is not already in order. The purpose of the Amendment is clear. We want to exclude from designation land which does not require redevelopment. I am accepting that all land which requires any kind of redevelopment should be acquired in a unit by the authority and redeveloped by that authority. That development may consist in making it an open space, a house, shop or cinema. If that is necessary, I accept that it may then become necessary, although obviously it cannot be done in the next five years, to remove a habitable house which gets in the way of a new plan, in order to have a proper lay-out. No one could contemplate that sort of thing today in the present state of housing development, but the time may come—and will come when we on this side of the House come into power—when it will be possible. One must look forward to the possibility. Therefore, I am not objecting to the acquisition of habitable premises even, provided they are going to be reshaped. What I object to is the acquisition of property which is not to be altered in any sort of way by the acquiring authority. There is no purpose whatever in the acquiring authority being authorised to do that.

At an earlier stage this afternoon, on an Amendment which only partially raised this point, I referred to the question of what reason there could be for an acquiring authority being made the owner of this property. I still can see only two reasons. One is to make a profit out of it, and the other is to plant their friends there in the place of the people who are there already. In dealing with undeveloped land, one knows that in all litigation for the compulsory acquisition of land there are limits of deviation. One does not fix just exactly where the authority has got to stop; they are given a certain limit of deviation so that when their plans are worked out in more detail, they can go 50 yards to the right if necessary. So far as undeveloped land is concerned, an authority ought to have the same sort of tolerance there as an ordinary statutory undertaker would have. What I object to is the granting of power to acquire whole blocks of buildings which are not going to be altered or taken down, but which are to become the property of the new authority. This is not purely a theoretical question.

7.45 p.m.

I do not profess to know all the ins and outs of some of the controversies which are going on in England, but I gather there is a controversy just now in the South of England about the acquisition by an authority—I do not know if it is a town council—of perfectly habitable offices which it is not proposed to take down. Why should they be acquired by this authority? What is the reason, if it is not one of the two reasons to which I have referred already? It would not be so bad if the acquiring authority bought it "on the nail," so to speak, on the day that it was designated. One would then avoid the fall in price which takes place owing to the shadow of designation, and one would also avoid the sterilisation which occurs in the interval between designation and acquisition. Therefore, it would not be so bad from the point of view of the owner; although it would be equally bad from the point of view of the occupier if this were done straight away. But the owner will suffer very much if there is a postponement, and the occupier will suffer very much when acquisition takes place.

I would like to hear an explanation of the inter-relationship between this Amendment and Section 29 of the 1945 Act as reprinted on the Order Paper. I do not wish to develop this point, because I shall have a good deal to say about that Section when we reach that point, and I do not want to anticipate my argument, but it does appear that there is no adequate security of tenure once this land is acquired. I think this provision would apply to a property of this kind. If that is so, the new occupier or the new developer—not even a public authority; it may be a private person to whom the building is given over for some purpose—has an absolute power to dispossess the former occupier, notwithstanding rent restrictions or anything else.

If it can be explained how these reprinted Sections do not apply to property acquired under this Clause, I shall be very interested. I have given some research to the matter and these points are so complicated that, without a great deal of labour, it is impossible to get to the bottom of them. I would be glad to have a clear statement about the position of the occupier of property which falls within the last four lines of this Subsection. I think I understand the position of the owner. On the ground of detriment both to the occupier and to the owner, I suggest, not that these four lines should be omitted, but that their meaning should be reversed so that it should be plain that there is not to be an acquisition of property which is not required for the purpose of redevelopment.

The Lord Advocate

The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) seems rather alarmed at the situation. He seems to see something sinister in every Amendment that we put down. In fact, most of our Amendments have been put down in order to accommodate hon. Members opposite. The point here is simple, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees the point and accepts it, but his suspicious mind makes him think that something lies behind it. We are simply seeking to ensure that there is a certain measure of latitude. It is most important that there should be power to designate a whole area, even though certain parts of it may not necessarily be redeveloped. That is the whole trouble. One cannot guarantee at the outset that one is going to redevelop every square yard of a particular area. Details will be adjusted at a later date and there must be a certain degree of latitude. That is really all that this Amendment is designed to do. Therefore, if one altered it as suggested by the Amendment to the Amendment, it would tie the hands of local authorities in dealing satisfactorily with the redevelopment of areas of land, and it is highly undesirable that their hands should be so tied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption is that these planning authorities will act in an oppressive and wrong way. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not entitled to assume that. I gladly assume that the local planning authorities will act properly as popular bodies. They require this latitude to carry out the job. For these reasons, we must resist the Amendment to the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that my right hon. and learned Friend was taking it for granted that these great planning authorities would act in an oppressive or wrong way. If that were at the back of his mind, he might have some justification for it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt remember what happened in Bristol and in Plymouth. In each case the local planning authority endeavoured to take over some property which they had no intention whatsoever of interfering with in any way so far as planning was concerned. One cannot imagine why they should have wanted to do that, unless they wanted to make some profit out of it. It is to prevent that kind of thing that we desire that our Amendment to the Amendment should be accepted. I cannot see why not. Why on earth, if they do not want to touch the land, should they acquire it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there must be a certain amount of latitude; but, surely, when people make out these plans they know perfectly well whether it is necessary to obliterate an area or widen it.

I cannot see where the need for this latitude comes in. The planners will know perfectly well whether, in any particular place, they are going to leave a street exactly as it is, or whether they are going to leave property exactly as it is, and do nothing to it. Yet the right hon and learned Gentleman says the local planning authorities must have latitude in case they want to alter the property; but they should know first whether they want to alter it or not. I want to know whether the Government really intend to legalise the kind of things the local planning authorities wanted to do in Bristol and in Plymouth, because that would seem to be another reason why this Government Amendment ought to be resisted. I hope I have made myself clear; and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with these two cases. There is evidence that, occasionally, for some reason or another, local planning authorities want to do things which are oppressive.

Mr. Buchanan

May I just say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)? I candidly admit I am not fully seized of the Plymouth and Bristol cases. What I am clear about is the position we have taken. I wish to associate myself fully with what the Lord Advocate said—that no local authority will act oppressively. The first thing a local planning authority has to do is to draw a line on the land they require, the property they require. They do not do that in a fully detailed fashion first. They draw a line that gives them all they think they need, and then, after they have done that, they acquire the land. It may well be that when they get down to closer grips with the subject, they find they have taken within that compass some property that they do not intend to develop. But if we took the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would mean that the local authority, if they drew a line and narrowed themselves to everything that they thought was absolutely necessary, might well find, in the future development of their plans, that they were being circumscribed in their development, because they had felt that some land would not be required.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

Why not buy it, then?

Mr. Buchanan

I cannot see the position here of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. All that we are asking is that these public authorities may draw a line, in a rough way, of what they desire. They draw a rough line and say, "That is the property we need in the development area." It may well be that, when they come to develop, they may find that they have taken certain property that they have no desire to take. They can dispose of it. As I said in dealing with the new Clause concerning the New Towns Act, we have nothing in our mind except to allow local planning authorities not to be narrowly circumscribed, but to have a fair field.

Commander Galbraith

Will the hon. Gentleman answer this point—?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I must remind the hon. Member that we are not now in Committee. We are on the Report stage, and hon. Members are only entitled to speak once.

Commander Galbraith

With permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to put this small question that I want to clear up. I apologise for not asking permission before I started. The hon. Gentleman says that within the area which a local authority wants to develop, there may be property which they find, later on, they do not want to develop.

Mr. Buchanan

Yes.

Commander Galbraith

Are they going to hand it back to the original owners, or keep it?

Mr. Buchanan

It would be for them to decide in all the circumstances. My own view is that if the owners wanted it back, the local authority's duty would be to offer them the first opportunity of acquiring it.

Question put, "That the word and stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes. 227; Noes, 69.

Division No. 298;] AYES. 6.46 p.m
Adams, Richard (Balham) Collins, V. J. Hale, Leslie
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Comyns, Dr. L. Hull, W. G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camewell, N.W.) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Allighan, Garry Corvedale, Viscount Hardy, E. A.
Alpass, J. H. Cove, W. G. Harrison, J
Attewell, H. C. Crossman, R. H S Herbison, Miss M
Austin, H. Lewis Daggar, G Hicks, G.
Awbery, S. S. Daines, P. Holman, P.
Ayles, W. H Davies, Edward (Burslem) Holmes, H. E.(Hemsworth
Baird, J. Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S W.) House, G.
Balfour, A. Davies, R J (Westhoughton) Hoy, J.
Barstow, P. G Deer, G. Hubbard, T
Barton, C. Diamond, J Hudson, J H.(Ealing, W.)
Battley, J. R. Dodds, N. N Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bechervaise, A. E Driberg, T. E. N. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Benson, G. Dumpleton, C W Irving, W. J.
Berry, H. Edelman, M. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Beswick, F. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Janner, B.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Jay, D. P. T
Bing, G. H. C Evans, John (Ogmore) Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Blyton, W. R. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Farthing, W. J. Keenan, W.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Kenyon, C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (I 'pi Exch'ge) Follick, M. Key, C. W.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Kinley, J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Ganley, Mrs C. S Kirby, B. V
Bruce, Maj. D. W T Gibbins, J. Lang, G.
Buchanan, G. Gilzean, A. Lavers, S.
Burke, W. A. Glanville, J E. (Consett) Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Callaghan, James Goach, E. G. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Castle, Mrs. B. A Gordon-Walker, P. C Leslie, J. R.
Chamberlain, R. A Greenwood, A. W. J.(Heywood) Levy, B. W.
Champion, A. J. Grenfell, D. R. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Chater, D. Grey, C. F. Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Chetwynd, G. R Grierson, E. McAdam, W.
Cluse, W. S. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly) McAllister, G.
Cobb, F. A. Guest, Dr. L. Haden McEntee, V. La T.
Cocks, F. S. Gunter, R. J. McGhee, H. G.
Collindridge, F. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Mack, J. D
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Ranger, J Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Rankin, J Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Rees-Williams, D. R Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H. Reeves, J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Reid, T. (Swindon) Thurtle, Ernest
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Tiffany, S.
Mathers, G. Robens, A. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Medland, H. M Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Mellish, R. J Rogers, G. H. R. Vernon, Maj. W. F
Messer, F. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Viant, S. P.
Middleton, Mrs. L Royle, C. Walkden, E
Mikardo, Ian Scollan, T. Walker, G. H.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R Scott-Elliot, W. Wallace, G. D.(Chislehurst)
Mitchison, G. R. Shackleton, E. A. A. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Monslow, W. Sharp, Granville Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Moody, A. S. Shurmer, P Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Silverman, J. (Erdington) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.) Simmons, C. J. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mort, D. L Skeffington, A. M. Wilkins, W. A.
Moyle, A. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Nally, W. Skinnard, F. W. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Smith, C (Colchester) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Oldfield, W. H. Solley, L. J. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Oliver, G. H Sorensen, R. W Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Orbach, M. Sparks, J. A Williamson, T
Paget, R T Stamford, W Willis, E.
Palmer, A. M. F Steele, T. Wills, Mrs. E A
Parker, J. Stephen, C. Wyatt, W.
Parkin, B. T. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Yates, V. F.
Paton, J. (Norwich) Stross, Dr. B Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Pearson, A. Stubbs, A. E Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Peart, T. F. Summerskill, Dr. Edith Zilliacus, K.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) Sylvester, G. O.
Popplewell, E. Symonds, A. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Porter, G. (Leeds) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Proctor, W. T. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Mr. Hannan.
Randall, H. E Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
NOES
Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) Hurd, A. Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Astor, Hon. M. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ramsay, Maj. S
Baldwin, A. E. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Rayner, Brig. R.
Baxter, A. B. Jeffreys, General Sir G Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H Lambert, Hon. G. Renton, D.
Birch, Nigel Langford-Holt, J. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Boothby, R Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Bower, N. Lindsay, M (Solihull) Ropner, Col. L.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)
Buchan-Hopburn, P. G. T. Low, Brig. A. R. W Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H Smithers, Sir W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O Stanley, Rt. Hon. O
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Crowder, Capt. John E Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Strauss, H. G (English Universities)
Darling, Sir W. Y. McKie, J. H (Galloway) Studholme, H G.
Drewe, C. MacLeod, J. Sutcliffe, H.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond) Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Eden, Rt. Hon A Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Manningham-Buller, R. E Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Marples, A. E. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Gage, C. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Medlicott, F. Turton, R. H.
Gammans, L. D. Mellor, Sir J Vane, W. M. F.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Molson, A. H E Wadsworth, G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. [...] Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Grant, Lady Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Gridley, Sir A. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Neven-Spence, Sir B Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Nicholson, G Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Noble, Comdr. A. H P
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C Nutting, Anthony TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Orr-Ewing, I. L. Commander Agnew and
Hollis, M. C Pickthorn, K. Major Conant.
Division No. 299. AYES. 7.58 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Griffiths, Rt Hon J (Llanelly) Popplewell, E.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Gunter, R. J. Porter E. (Warring[...])
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Alpass, J. H. Hale, Leslie Proctor, W. T
Attewell, H. C Hall, W. G. Randall, H. E
Austin, H. Lewis Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R Ranger, J
Awbery, S. S Hardy, E A Rankin, J
Ayles, W. H Harrison, J Rees-Williams, D.[...]
Baird, J Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Reeves, J.
Balfour A. Holman, P. Raid, T. (Swindon)
Barnes, Rt. Hon A J Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Barstow, P. G House, G Robens, A.
Barton, C. Hoy, J. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Battley, J. R. Hubbard, T. Rogers, G. H. R.
Bechervaise, A E Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Benson, G Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Royle, C.
Berry, H. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W) Scollan, T.
Beswick, F. Irving, W. J. Segal, Dr. S
Bing, G. H. C Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A Shackleton, E. A A
Blackburn, A. R Janner, B Sharp, Granville
Blenkinsop, A Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Shurmer, P.
Blyton, W. R. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Bowden, Fig-Offr. H. W Keenan, W. Simmons, C. J.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Key, C. W Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt Exch'ge) Kinley, J Skinnard, F W.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Kirby, B. V Smith, C (Colchester)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Lang, G. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Lavers, S. Solley, L. J
Buchanan, G. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Sorensen, R. W
Burke, W. A. Lee, F. (Hulme) Sparks, J. A
Castle, Mrs. B. A Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Stamford, W
Chamberlain, R. A Leonard, W. Steele, T.
Champion, A. J Leslie, J. R. Stephen, C.
Chater, D. Levy, B. W. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Chetwynd, G. R Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)
Cobb, F. A. Lipton, Lt.-Col M Stross, Dr. B
Cocks, F. S. McAdam, W Stubbs, A. E
Coldrick, W. McAllister, G. Sylvester, G O
Collins, V. J. McEntee, V. La T. Symonds, A. L
Colman, Miss G. M McGhee, H. G. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Comyns, Dr. L. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb well, N W.) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Coriett, Dr. J. Mainwaring, W. H. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Corvedale, Viscount Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Thomson, Rt. Hn G. R. (Ed'b'gh. E.)
Cove, W. G Marshall F. (Brightside) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Crossman, R. H S Martin, J. H Thurtle, Ernest
Daggar, G. Mathers, G. Tiffany, S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Mayhew, C. P Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Medland, H. M Ungoed-Thomas, L
Davies, R J (Westhoughton) Mellish, R. J Usborne, Henry
Deer, G. Messer, F. Vernon, Maj W P
Diamond, J. Middleton, Mrs. L Viant, S. P
Dodds, N. N. Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R Walkden, E
Driberg, T. E. N Mitchison, G. R Walker, G H
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Monslow, W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Dumpleton, C. W. Moody, A. S. Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow. E.)
Edelman, M. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel) Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Evans, E (Lowestoft) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore) Mort, D. L White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Evans, S. N (Wednesbury) Moyle, A. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Fairhurst, F. Nally, W. Wilkins, W. A.
Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E.) Nicholls, H. R (Stratford) Willey, O G. (Cleveland)
Follick, M. Noel-Baker, Capt F E (Brentford) Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Williams, W. R (Heston)
Gaitskell, H. T. N O'Brien, T. Williamson, T
Ganley, Mrs C S Oldfield, W. H Willis, E.
Gibbins, J. Paget, R. T. Wills, Mrs. E A
Gilzean, A. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Wyatt, W
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Palmer, A. M. F Yates, V. F.
Gooch, E. G. Pargiter, G. A Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Gordon-Walker, P. C Parker, J. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood) Parkin, B. T. Zilliacus, K
Grenfell, D. R Paton, J. (Norwich)
Grey, C. F. Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grierson, E. Peart, T F Mr. Collindridge and
Mr. Hannan.
NOES
Astor, Hon. M Hutchison, Lt.-Cm, Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ramsay, Maj S
Baldwin, A. E. Hutchison, Col J R (Glasgow, C.) Rayner, Brig R
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Keeling, E H. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)
Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells) Langford-Holt, J. Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Boothby, R Lindsay, M (Solihull) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Bower, N Lucas-Tooth. St H Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cor W MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Clarke, Col R. S. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Strauss, H. G (English Universities)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Sutcliffe, H
Darling, Sir W Y Manningham-Buller, R. E Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Drewe, C. Marples, A. E. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, s)
Dugdale, Maj Sir T (Richmond) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Teeling, William
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Medlicott, F Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D P M Mellor, Sir J Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F
Gage, C. Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T Vane, W. M. F.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Morris-Jones, Sir H. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Gomme-Duncan, Col A Morrison, Rt Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Gridley, Sir A. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Williams, C (Torquay)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Orr-Ewing, I. L Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl
Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt Hon Sir C Osborne, C.
Mollis, M. C Pickthorn, K TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hurd, A Raikes, H V Mr. Studholme and
Major Conant.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 22, leave out from "aforesaid," to ?within,? in line 23, and to insert: it it appears to him that the acquisition is not likely to take place."—[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. Buchanan

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, at the end, to insert: or in the case of agricultural land as defined in subsection (4) of Section forty-seven of this Act within seven years from that date. This Amendment is designed to make the position clear. It represents a concession in respect of taking over agricultural land. We had fixed a period of ten years for that land, in respect of which there was some criticism in the Standing Committee. I do not think we have gone all the way to meet that criticism, but we have gone some way by reducing the period to seven years.

Amendment agreed to.