HC Deb 13 May 1947 vol 437 cc1363-79

Where any person engaged in the business of developing land shows to the satisfaction of the Minister that during the period of five years ending on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-nine he was 90 engaged, and that on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven he had an interest in land (not being land to which Section seventy-four of this Act applies) sufficient to enable him to carry out development of the kind carried out by him in the said period, the Minister may direct that no payment shall be made to that person under Part V of this Act in respect of an extent of such land not exceeding the extent of the land on which he has carried out development during the said period, and may direct that no development charge under Part VI of this Act shall be payable in respect of development of that kind carried out on any land in respect of which no payment under the said Part V has been made as aforesaid.— [Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This proposed new Clause has a somewhat complicated history; but the Minister will acknowledge its respectable origins since it is partly, though not wholly, derived from the Minister's own suggestion made upstairs in the Standing Committee. This Clause is not designed to deal with what is known as dead ripe land. Dead ripe land is legislated for in Clause 74, which exempts dead ripe land from development charge and consequently denies it a claim to compensation. We take the view that the definition of dead ripe land contained in Clause 74 is too narrow. I am glad to see that the Minister has on the Order Paper an Amendment designed to widen Subsection (1, b) of Clause 74. I went into this point in some detail in the Standing Committee and I refer to it here because, though it is not precisely the subject matter of this new Clause, I greatly fear that owing to the time-table to which the House has been subjected, we shall not be able to discuss Clause 74 on the Report stage. That would appear to be almsot inevitable from the short time given for the discussion of this Bill.

6.45 p.m.

This new Clause does not deal with the same type of land as Clause 74, which deals with dead ripe land. This Clause deals with what the Minister has christened "near ripe land." This is a new and rather reprehensible addition to a vocabulary of jargon on the subject which has already grown to a considerable extent. May I say in parenthesis that I think it a pity that this subject of town and country planning should have lent itself to this peculiar excrescence of a technical vocabulary or jargon all its own. We have terms like "overspill" and "floating value" about which we have been talking this afternoon and which are the sort of liquid metaphors associated with it. We also have the fruity metaphors of "near ripe land" and "dead ripe land." It is a serious point that the use of all this jargon has a rather deterrent effect on the non-specialist in these matters, and makes him feel that the subject of town and country planning is a closed book except for the select few who understand this peculiar jargon.

The Clause I am moving has an importance extending far beyond merely those who choose to specialise in these matters and those who choose to employ this somewhat degraded jargon which I am sure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) would join me in deploring. May I say, therefore, that dead ripe land is understood to be land ready in all respects for immediate development. My right hon. and learned Friend defined it in the Committee upstairs as land on which the floating value defined by the Uthwatt Report has already settled: but that is, if I may say so, an interpretation of a jargon word by introducing another jargon word to define it.

Near ripe land, which is the name that the Minister gave to the category of land we are providing for in this Clause, is really a reserve of land bought by builders and estate developers for the purpose of development but not so far developed, nor yet immediately capable of development, because of the peculiar circumstances of the time; that is to say, because of the unfavourable circumstances of the war, and of the present housing policy which is restrictive of private enterprise development. The land then that we seek to deal with in this Clause is that strategic reserve of land held at present by builders and estate developers which they are unable to deploy for reasons not within their own control, and this strategic reserve of land has a very big importance in the future of house building in this country. That is why I made the point earlier on that this Clause, and the principle embodied in it, has an importance far beyond the mere specialised importance of town and country planning law. In the Standing Committee the Minister agreed that we must decide the important question as to how this particular category of land is to be treated.

What this Clause proposes is that builders should get what I would call a five-year ration of this near ripe land free from development charge and, of course, consequently denied the benefit of claim to compensation for loss of development value out of the £300 million global sum. The five-year ration of building land thus given under the terms of this Clause would then fall to be dealt with in precisely the same way as the dead ripe land already legislated for under Clause 74 of the Bill. That is to say, it will be exempt from the whole machinery of development charge, and of compensation. It will be free from the one, and will not attract the other. Under the proposed Clause, three conditions must be satisfied before the builders can get the advantage of this five-year ration of land in the way I have described. In the first place, they must show to the satisfaction of the Minister that they were bona fide builders or estate developers in the five-year period preceding the war or, to be more precise, in the period March, 1934, to March, 1939. That is the first condition they must satisfy.

The second condition that they must satisfy is that they must be in possession of sufficient land in January, 1947, to enable them to carry out development of the kind specified. The third condition they must satisfy is that the amount of land to be exempted from development charge under the provisions of this Clause must not exceed the land actually developed by the builder or estate developer in the five-year period, March, 1934, to March, 1939. That is the proposal as put forward in this Clause wan the object of giving builders a five-year ration of building land free from development charge.

It is enabling them, in other words, to develop that land. Develop, again, is a jargon word which has arisen. In this context it really means to enable them to build houses and other useful buildings upon that land without the payment of development charge. The reason why they have not been able to build on that land before, as quite specifically admitted by the Minister in Committee upstairs, is due to the difficult circumstances of the time, over which they had no control. The reason why we want to enable them to build, is that the buildings they would put up would be of value to the community not only in regard to the house building programme, but in regard to the requirements of planning itself. Some of these reserves of land may possibly contain the beginnings of partly developed estates. It is extremely bad planning to have isolated houses or buildings on what should be a finished building estate.

I pointed out in the beginning of my speech that the remedy which I am proposing to assist builders in this position had its origin partly in the remedy proposed by the Minister to meet the same problem, the existence of which he has freely acknowledged. But the remedy in this Clause differs in one fundamental respect from the remedy proposed by the Minister for dealing with the problem of near ripe land. The Minister's remedy, as indicated to the Standing Committee, is to give to builders in respect of near ripe land a preferential claim for compensation from the £300 million global sum. In the Minister's suggestion that preferential claim on the amounts drawn from the compensation fund, will of course serve as a set-off against the development charges which they must pay. In our view that remedy is a bad remedy, for one simple and sufficient reason. The concession the Minister proposes to give, in respect of this land, is a preferential claim on the compensation fund. If he gives to certain parties or persons preferential claims on the compensation fund, the inevitable consequence is that he diminishes the claims of other and deserving parties in respect of their compensation to be paid out of the same £300 million.

In other words, what the Minister is proposing to do in respect of this land is to give to those builders a larger slice of a cake of fixed size, with the inevitable corollary that the size of the cake remaining for distribution is diminished to that extent. That is a remedy we feel it necessary to repudiate. We do not seek concessions along the lines of preferential claims upon the £300 million, but rather along the lines of taking this particular category of land out of the whole combined machinery of the levy of development charge, and the right to compensation. I must also repudiate the suggestion made by the Minister in Standing Committee that the right way to deal with this question would be by regulation. I do not think so. I think the principle as embodied in this Clause is quite clear and simple enough to take its place in the statute. Any principle which can be incorporated in the body of a statute, should be so incorporated, and not left to the machinery of regulations.

The proposed Clause has the virtues of clarity and simplicity. The only defect I see in it—and I commend it to the Minister for his consideration—is that we have not made proper provision for the case of the builder who had not started operations until after the beginning of the five-year period in 1934. But, if the Minister adopts the principle, it will be quite easy for him to insert the necessary words in another place in order to cover the case of the new builder. This Clause is designed to stimulate building, and especially to stimulate house building. It is, therefore, a very practical suggestion. We on this side of the House believe that ultimately it will be necessary for the Minister of Health, in support of his housing programme, to say to these private enterprise builders; Come over into Macedonia and help us. The right hon. Gentleman upstairs in Committee very nearly took that view. I think he was only restrained at the last moment by a sudden recollection of the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility, from giving to the sentiments to which giving I have just referred. This Clause would help the cause of house building in this country and, therefore, I think it has a good claim on the goodwill of the House.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to second the Motion.

In Committee, the Minister gave some assurance about this. If I may read his words, he said; I recognise that this Clause may need some widening … I think that the case one wants to meet is that of the person who bought land before the war with the bona-fide intention of developing it as part of his business, but was prevented from doing so by the war, and has since been prevented from doing so by a combination of reasons which are well known to Members of this Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 26th Marco, 1947; c. 804.] He then went on to read his statement about near ripe land, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has reminded the House, was almost identical. with one exception, with the new Clause. We therefore anticipated that he would come to the House on Report stage with Amendments which would incorporate in the Bill the statement which he made in Committee. It is only because he has not done so that we have put down this new Clause. Many of us think that it does not go far enough. I would like to see it go a good deal further, because we are not here really dealing with the problem of dead ripe land, which I would like to see dealt with. But in so far as this new Clause is an attempt to incorporate the intention of the Minister, as clearly expressed in the Committee stage, I am sure that it ought to commend itself to all sides of the House. We are not legislating for detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford reminded the House of one point of detail, that of the builder who started operations recently, and who would not qualify for the five-year ration. Those matters could be dealt with by regulations. It is the principle which we want to see incorporated in the place where it should be incorporated, namely, in the Bill.

Mr. Silkin

This new Clause has been moved on the basis that it is reasonably identical with the offer I made on the Committee stage. This Clause goes very much further than the proposal that I made.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I had hoped that I had made it clear that though, in origin, it owed something to the Minister's suggestion upstairs, it had what I described as one very important fundamental difference. I then explained that the difference arises from the relationship of this Clause to the whole question of compensation and 'development charge. I did not suggest that it was identical. Of course, it is not.

Mr. Silkin

Then we have cleared that misconception out of the way, because the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) rather made the point that I might accept this Clause because it was similar to the offer which I made in Committee. One point on which I should like to agree with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is that we shall not reach Clause 74, on the assumption that we proceed in the leisurely way in which we have dealt with the last two or three Clauses.

I am not able to accept this new Clause. I thought I had gone as far as it was reasonable to go in dealing with the type of land which I described as near ripe land, a term which the hon. Gentleman does not like. I hope he will find a better one for it, if not during the Report stage of this Bill. After all, Clause 74, as it will be amended, does bring in all the land which ought to be exempted from the operations of compensation and development charge. I should remind the House of what the conditions are. They are easily satisfied. There has to be a building contract in existence on the appointed day, made at any time within 10 years previous to 7th January, 1947, or a by-law submission, or, if my Amendment is accepted, a building application. Those are conditions which are easily satisfied. If the owner of land has a bona fide intention of developing his land, and a possibility of developing it—both are needed to make land dead ripe—at any time within to years, he will have complied with one or other of those requirements.

We are here dealing with an owner of land who has not satisfied any of these requirements, but who may be in possession of land which he had some intention, at some time, of developing. Why did he not develop? I admit there may be causes, such as that he could not develop because of the difficulties arising out of the war, but there was a great deal of land in the possession of developers at the outbreak of war, and before that, which they did not develop for quite different reasons. They did not develop because the demand was slowing down, because there was the competition of other sites, and possibly for a variety of other reasons. Many developers bought land with the deliberate intention of holding that land for some years, knowing quite well that they were not proposing to develop for a long time to come, knowing that the land was not ripe for development, possibly waiting for services to be provided at the expense of the community, possibly waiting for new means of transport, for a new station. Land which was not ripe for development was bought for a great variety of reasons.

The effect of the proposed new Clause would be to make all types of land of that kind available for the treatment which is provided in Clause 74, so long as the owner had carried on business as a builder for five years. I thought that the proposal I made as regards near ripe land was generally acceptable to the Committee. If the hon. Member repudiates that offer, and he speaks with authority on behalf of those who would have benefited by the offer, I am quite willing to accept his repudiation.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I think the Minister is involving himself in a misunderstanding on two points, the first being in regard to the acceptance of the proposal which he made to the Standing Committee. He came there, without notice, and read a long and detailed statement, and said most expressly that if we on our side wished to reserve judgment, he would fully appreciate our position. Secondly, he was kind enough to say that I spoke with authority. When I say that we repudiate this particular method of going about the matter, I am speaking of my hon. Friends in this House. What would be the views of those who were designed to benefit by it, he would be able to find out from them. I am only speaking for those in this House, who will not benefit, but who are interested from the point of view of the community.

Mr. Silkin

I put that question advisedly. The hon. Member asked me whether I had had consultations on this matter. I told him that I had, and that the people I had consulted expressed themselves as being satisfied with the proposals. Knowing the hon. Gentleman's associations I wondered whether he was speaking with authority in repudiating these proposals.

Mr. Walker-Smith


Mr. Silkin

I gathered not. I think they go as far as is reasonable. They take care of the bona fide owner of land who carries on business as a builder, and who bought land in anticipation of being able to develop at some time, but who realised, in the years immediately before the war, that he was not going to develop at that time, and that it would be some years before he would develop; in other words, that his land was not dead ripe. I felt there was some difficulty in saying land was dead ripe and so became liable for the benefits provided in Clause 75, or was not dead ripe, and got nothing at all. There may be a stage when land is nearly dead ripe. I have tried to indicate what I had in mind in classifying such land as available for the benefits I set out before the Committee. I hope the House will recognise that this is reasonable treatment for people who were in possession of such land at the outbreak of war, and that they ought not to receive the same treatment as if that land were actually ripe for development.

The only other point is whether this should have been put in the Bill or left to be done by regulations. I felt it was better, on the whole, to do it by regulations. If the House will look at the proposals that I actually made, hon. Members will see that they do mean some flexibility. I ought to leave some elbow room for modifications in the light of experience of how the thing works. To have put the thing into the Bill would have involved rigidity, not to be altered without another Act of Parliament. But if hon. Gentlemen, after consideration, would really prefer to have the proposal that I made in Committee in the Bill, then, as it is not a thing on which I feel at all strongly, I should be quite prepared to put it in; but they, and those who would benefit by it, must take the consequences. I think it would be wiser to have the thing in regulations.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

Would not the way to do it in the Bill be to follow the precedent which is set in so many other Clauses, and say the regulation may prescribe so and so? That would allow the right hon. Gentleman the flexibility, I think, all of us want.

Mr. Silkin

That is a point which merits consideration, and if hon. Members opposite are prepared to withdraw the Amendment, subject to my undertaking to do something of that sort, I shall be willing to do it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The right hon. Gentleman explained his new proposals in Committee on Clause 75, as it then was; and I think that fact is significant, because at that time, of course, we had already disposed of the Clauses dealing with compensation payable out of the £300 million fund. We disposed of that aspect of the matter, but we came on to the particular scheme which he indicated to the Committee. I imagine that his reason for deferring that statement was that, in fact, it was only at that stage that the scheme had taken proper form in his mind. In the course of his remarks in the Committee the right hon. Gentleman said: If the payment he"— that is, the builder— receives is less than the charge he has to pay, then an additional item is being added to his costs, over and above the price he paid for the land in the first place—a price that may. perhaps, have included the full development value."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 26th March, 1947; c. 806.] It is perfectly plain from those words that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that there will be a good deal of land, at any rate, which is fully ripe, in every ordinary use of that term, that is to say, which has been paid for at its full development value, which is to be brought within the £300 million fund, and not excluded under Section 74 of the Bill. It is in respect of that land that I, for my own part, take exception to the Minister's scheme, and desire to see it amended in the sense proposed in this new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith).

7.15 p.m.

It may be that the particular wording of this Clause is not altogether appropriate to cover what we have in mind. That may easily be so with an Opposition new Clause. But the principle which I wish to see established is the principle that where land on the appointed day is fully ripe there should be no call on the £300 million fund in order to make good the amount of the development charge which will be raised upon it. I think that is the shortest way to put it. It is certainly a principle on which I shall be prepared to go into the Lobby, in the event of this new Clause being taken to a Division.

The right hon. Gentleman presumably found his particular plan a novel idea when he propounded it in the Committee upstairs, but I would remind him that, during the Debate on Second Reading of the Bill, he defended the sum of £300 million, not only as adequate, but as being not more than adequate: He was attacked both from above and below, and he had to contend with his own followers on the other side of the House, and argue that under the distribution of the £300 million fund those who were to receive compensation were not getting too much. I venture to say that, at that time, he must, presumably, have had some sort of an idea in his mind as to how that fund was to be distributed, and that that idea did not include any notion of giving the lion's share to one particular section of the community. So that his new plan, by which he must inevitably take a large amount out of that global sum, must result in taking something from those who are already, in accordance with his own arguments, merely getting a barely adequate amount. In other words, his argument on Second Reading and his argument in Committee upstairs clearly mean he contemplates doing a grave injustice to those who are not going to take the direct benefit of his scheme.

There is another aspect of this matter which should be brought out at this stage. If a builder's land is to receive—or some of it—full compensation—and by that I mean, the full amount of any development value which he is called upon to pay—it will be a matter of indifference to that builder whether he claims in respect of that land against the £300 million fund whether he claims outside that fund; in other words, be exempt from development value under Clause 74 of the Bill. In one case, he will get no compensation and pay no charge; in the other case, no will pay a charge but he will receive precisely an equal amount of compensation: it will not make any difference to him under which heading he falls.

It is true, of course, that in the case of some builders holding a large amount of land, perhaps an excessive amount of land, they will have residual interest which they cannot bring within the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. But I have been at some pains in the matter to ascertain what the position is, and I gather that, in the case of a very high proportion, virtually the whole of their land would be included in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. Quite rightly, of course. I do not blame them, and, indeed, I wish to see them treated in precisely the way m which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to treat them, but it is altogether unfair that they should get fair treatment at the expense of the rest of the community. When they are going to be faced with this alternative, the tendency, on the whole, will be for them to take the easier course, and so, in the ordinary way, to make a claim by virtue of being builders instead of covering the whole of their land. They will not go through the difficulties and complications of claiming to be exempt from the whole scheme under Clause 74. If that is not universally so. I am sure there will be quite a large number of such cases.

We are providing that owners of land which should have been exempt altogether, and correctly, under Clause 74 of the Bill, will tend not to be brought in under that Clause, but to seek the equivalent of exemption in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, and, in so doing, will be benefiting at the expense of less fortunate persons. They will be claiming a position which will be more favourable as against all others who are not able to bring their land under this scheme. I think that will lead to bad administration, and I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman will make such a scheme at all. He has said that he is willing to put the scheme within the Bill, instead of leaving it to regulations. If he does so, there will be an opportunity on the Floor of the House of discussing whatever is proposed. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, although it would certainly not satisfy me that the scheme is a good one, but I am glad to hear that it will, at some time, come before this House.

Mr. Silkin

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I want him to be quite fair. I said that, if hon. Gentlemen pressed me to put it into the Bill, I would be willing to consider it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I take it that the suggestion is that it would be introduced in another place, and would come to us after some discussion. Owing to the difficulties which we have to meet through the curtailment of the discussion, there have been enormous difficulties, and here is a typical example. If we had had an opportunity of discussing it properly in Committee upstairs, we should have been able to go into it fully and adequately, but, as it is, we must take what we can get, and I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, he will bring before us what he is proposing so that we can give him our views on that matter.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The right hon. Gentleman will remember the circumstances in which this proposal of his was discussed on the Committee stage. It was after he had been pressed with regard to the claims of builders owning land required to be purchased for development purposes, and after he had been impressed by the force of the arguments put forward in their favour. When he had announced his proposals at the next sitting, after giving them careful consideration, we expressed the view that, while they were satisfactory in some degree, we did not welcome the suggestion that there should be a priority charge on the £300 million fund. As said then, and as is the case now, when the right hon. Gentleman recognises this category of near-ripe land, that is, land which is so ripe it ought to be taken out of the operation of the development charge, his argument really is that the individual owning this land should not have to pay anything out of his pocket for development. If that be the gist of his argument, why is it necessary to deplete the £300 million fund notionally by making false entries? The only effect of operating it that way is to diminish the fund for those claiming benefit on account of hardship.

The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) put, I thought, an extremely cogent argument as to the relationship between Clauses 74 and 75, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again on that point. There is not much difference between his scheme as outlined in Committee and this new Clause now under discussion. The material difference is whether this land is treated as dead ripe land—as being so ripe that it ought not to be put on a development charge—or whether for purposes of book entries and reducing the amount available in cases of hardship and compensation for minerals, we should include it as a charge upon that development fund. I should like the Minister to say that he will look at it again. We have not had much discussion of this matter, for the simple reason that it was announced one morning and we gave our first thoughts about it. This new Clause has enabled us to have some discussion on the question now.

In regard to the second point, whether the scheme should be put into the Bill or dealt with by regulations, I do not think that it falls upon us to express any view upon that, except to say that, where possible, we prefer to have schemes of this character put into a Bill when the Bill first comes before the House for Second Reading. We could then have opportunities for discussing and considering it, and tabling Amendments where need be. If one is asked whether we should prefer to have this scheme now put into the Bill in another place, with, it may be, limited opportunities for consideration in this House, or whether it would be preferable to have it put into regulations, I do not think that is a question on which I am called upon to express an opinion, particularly as one is ignorant of the details of the scheme which is in the Minister's mind. As the right hon. Gentleman really recognises this near-ripe land, which should not be burdened with a development charge, in the sense in which the person owning the land has to pay out of his own pocket, I suggest that he should go a stage further and free the £300 million fund from an obligation to meet such claims when that process merely amounts to a cross-entry in a ledger for compensation received.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I would urge upon the Minister to reconsider the difficulty concerning this near-ripe land. The difficulties under Clause 74, in spite of what the Minister claimed for it, are very sweeping. I suggest that the Minister should accept a Clause which lays down a simple method of dealing with the matter satisfactorily, namely, a five year period when the land can be used for purposes of building without paying this development charge and without any compensation system at all, there being no floating value to speak of, which is the justification for the right hon. Gentleman's complicated system of compensation. I do press upon the Minister that he should realise the importance of this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 97; Noes, 296.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Parkin, B. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Bramall, E. A. Hardy, E. A Paton, J. (Norwich)
Brook, D (Halifax) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Pearson, A.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Herbison, Miss M. Pearl, Capt. T. F.
Brown, George (Belper) Hewitson, Captain M. Popplewell, E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hobson, C. R. Porter, E. (Warrington)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Holman, P. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Buchanan, G. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Price, M. Philips
Burden, T. W Hoy, J. Pritt, D. N.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Hubbard, T. Proctor, W. T
Byers, Frank Hudson, J. H, (Ealing, W.) Pryde, D. J.
Callaghan, James Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Carmichael, James Hynd, H. (Hackney. C.) Ranger, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Irving, W. J. Rankin, J.
Chamberlain, R. A. Janner, B. Rees-Williams, D. R
Champion, A. J Jay, D. P. T. Reeves, J.
Chaser, D. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Chetwynd, G. R. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Rhodes, H.
Clitherow, Dr. R. John, W. Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Cobb, F. A. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) Robens, A.
Cocks, F. S Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Coldrick, W. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Colman, Miss G. M Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Comyns, Dr. L. Keenan, W. Rogers, G. H. R.
Cook, T. F. Kenyon, C. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Corvedale, Viscount Key, C. W. Scollan, T.
Cove, W. G. King, E. M. Scott-Elliot, W.
Crossman, R. H. S. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E Shackleton, E. A. A.
Daggar, G. Kinley, J. Sharp, Granville
Daines, P. Kirby, B. V. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Kirkwood, D Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Lang, G. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Lavers, S. Shurmer, P.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, F. (Hulme) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Leslie, J. R. Simmons, C. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lever, N. H. Skeffington, A. M.
Deer, G. Levy, B. W. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Delargy, H. J Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Skinnard, F. W.
Diamond, J. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, C. (Colchester)
Dobbie, W Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Dodds, N. N. Logan, D. G. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Driberg, T. E. N. Lyne, A. W. Snow, Capt. J. W.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) McAdam, W. Solley, L. J
Dumpleton, C. W. McAllister, G. Sorensen, R. W.
Durbin, E. F. M. McEntee, V. La T. Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McGhee, H G. Stamford, W.
Edelman, M. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.) Strachey, J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn) McKinley, A S. Stross, Dr. B.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) McLeavy, F. Stubbs, A. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Macpherson, T. (Rumford) Swingler, S.
Evans, John (Ogmore) Mainwaring, W. H. Symonds, A L.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Ewart, R. Mann, Mrs. J. Taylor, R.J. (Morpeth)
Fairhurst, F. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Farthing, W. J. Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Field, Capt. W. J. Marshall, F. (Brightside) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Medland, H. M. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Foot, M. M. Mellish, R. J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Forman, J. C. Middleton, Mrs. L Thurtle, Ernest
Foster, W. (Wigan) Mitchison, G. R Tiffany, S.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Monslow, W. Titterington, M. F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Montague, F. Tolley, L.
Gallacher, W. Moody, A. S. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Morley, R. Turner-Samuels, M.
Gibbins, J Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Gilzean, A. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Vernon, Maj. W. F
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (L'wish'm, E.) Viant, S. P.
Gooch, E. G. Mort, D. L. Wadsworth, G.
Goodrich, H. E. Moyle, A. Walkden, E.
Gordon-Walker, P. C. Nally, W. Walker, G. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Naylor, T. E. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Neal, H, (Claycross) Watson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Grey, C. F Noel-Baker, Cap.. F. E (Brentford) Weitzman, D.
Grierson E. Noel-Buxton, Lady Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) O'Brien, T. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon, J. (Llanelly) Oldfield, W. H. West, D. G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Oliver, G. H. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J. Paling, Rt. Hon, Wilfred (Wentworth) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Hale, Leslie Pargiter, G. A. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hall, W. G. Wigg, Col. G. E.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Wilkes, L. Wise, Major F. J. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Wilkins, W. A. Woodburn, A Zilliacus, K.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Woods, G. S
Williams, D. J. (Neath) Wyatt, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Williams, J L, (Kelvingrove) Yates, V. F Mr. Joseph Henderson and