HC Deb 05 February 1948 vol 446 cc1981-95
Mr. Turton

I beg to move, in page 9 line 30, at the end, to insert: (2) The following provisions shall be added after 'land,' in the sixth line of paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 1939 'or in a case where land is agricultural land, a sum equal to the amount of the loss or expense directly attributable to the requisitioning, provided that compensation shall be payable in such case of an amount equal to two years rent of the holding at the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the requisitioning without proof of any such loss or expense, and that the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in excess of five years rent of the holding.' The Committee will remember that at a early stage of the Bill, when we were dealing with this point, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said: It is our view that we can explore that between now and further stages of the Bill, and that with the aid of that particular Section treated generously as far as we can—certainly the expenses under Section 2 (1 d) of the 1939 Act have been treated generously—and with the increase in the ceiling of compensation under this Bill something like justice can be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1119.] I am very sorry to hear that, as a result of the exploration of the situation by the Government, there was a blank space on the Order Paper. Therefore, we on the Opposition side had to devise this Amendment, and the line we adopted was not that of dealing with the consequential loss, but the line laid down by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, based upon the extension of Section 2 (I, d) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and also of Section 30 of the Agriculture Act, 1947.

That is citing a lot from Acts of Parliament, but what it really means is that if a farmer is deprived of his livelihood by the working of opencast coal, he can get the sa[...] type of compensation for disturbance as a farmer gets when he is evicted by his landlord.

The Committee will remember that farmers generally thought they should get a larger amount of compensation than the minimum of one year's rent, but in the Agriculture Act their position was safeguarded so that they could not easily get a notice to quit. Requisitioning of their farms is a different thing altogether. A man is in the middle of his farming operations and suddenly the opencast mining of coal is decided upon and he finds that he is losing his land. We claim that he should get two years' rent of his land instead of one year's rent as minimum compensation for such disturbance. If he is making a profit, the Government taxes the profit by making him pay three times the amount of the Schedule B valuation. Therefore, we ask that he shall have at least a minimum of two years' rental as compensation, and that if he claims more shall have to prove that his loss is up to a maximum of five years of his rent. That gives him the opportunity to claim, under paragraph (d) of the Subsection, from two to five years' rent.

There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. In this Amendment we provide for the case where a man loses part of his holding. If it is not actually in the Amendment, that is because the Amendment was put down in a hurry last night, owing to certain factors which are not completely under my control, namely, the early rising of the House, and because of the fact that the Government had not put anything down on the Order Paper. We believe that if a man loses part of his holding he should be entitled to compensation for the whole of his holding, because there are many cases where, if part of the holding is taken, he would lose the whole.

I hope this Amendment will commend itself to the Government. In drafting it we have paid careful attention to what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said at an earlier stage, and we believe it to be in line with what the Government have in mind. I hope it will be accepted. It is no good the Government merely giving an assurance. This Amendment is along the lines of what we would like to see done. The insertion of words in the Bill would give confidence to the farmers who are losing their livelihood through opencast coal working.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

No Amendment was put on the Order Paper by the Government for the reason I gave in the Debate we had last week, that it was not necessary as we could use the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, and also call in aid certain Sections of the Agriculture Act, 1947, particularly Section 30, which deals with disturbance. It was our view that, without any need for further legislation, we could use the provisions already in being to assist farmers who found themselves in the situation which has been described by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton). For those reasons we did not put down an Amendment, and for the same reasons we cannot accept this Amendment. It would add a further Subsection to Section (2) of the 1939 Act, which would have the effect of increasing expenses under paragraph (1, d) of that Section to two years certain, without proof, and up to five years if cause could be shown why more money should be given. We are quite able to do all that is necessary in, I should imagine, the great bulk of, if not all, cases.

The idea, put forward from both sides of the Committee last time, that something should be done to make good to a farmer his loss of profits, has been dropped. We said it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment, because it would open wide the door to all sorts of claims for compensation which could not be contemplated with equanimity.

Let me repeat what can be done when the Bill becomes law. Under the 1939 Act, we have the rental compensation which is payable to a farmer when his land has been requisitioned. We are increasing that; this Bill will give him more than he gets now, and more than he got under the 1939 Act. His tenant right of compensation is going up, and that will be of considerable help. His reimbursement for expenses incurred under paragraph (1, d) will also be implemented on a more liberal scale than has been possible in the past. We think that the increased help the farmer will get under the 1939 Act should not be disregarded, as it will in a large number of cases be of great benefit to him in this direction.

We also propose that administratively this further concession should be made, that we should use the provisions contained in Section 30 of the 1947 Act to give help to the farmer as thought he had been disturbed—as he undoubtedly will have been—as a tenant. It will be possible to give the farmer in that situation up to one year without proof, and up to two years or more if it can be proved that more money has been expended. The question arises: what more can we do to help? My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture dealt with this point in detail on the last occasion, when he indicated that the Government saw force in the argument of the farmer who might say, "Although a large part of my farm has not been requisitioned, nevertheless, so closely balanced is my holding that by taking this part away you will rob me of profits which I would otherwise make." It has been decided to give that farmer the option either of giving up the whole of his farm and letting the Ministry requisition it as a whole, or to continue, if he so desires, to farm the rump.

If the farmer remains as the tenant of the rump, he will get compensation, under the 1939 Act, for that part which has been requisitioned; but if he clears out temporarily the full force of the 1939 Act, plus the extra that will come under this Bill, will come into play on his behalf. If he decides to go out temporarily while his farm, or part of it, is being used for opencast working he is, in the full sense of the term, an outgoing tenant. If the farmer goes into another occupation until his farm can be handed back to him in its entirety, he will get the compensation which will come to him. If he decides, however, that although he wants the county agricultural committee to take over part of the farm it will be for him then to decide whether he would like to go back as tenant of the rump. Where he can show, as sometimes he may be able to do, that unless something of that sort is done he will lose heavily, then the agricultural committee will be only too pleased to put him in, to let him farm the rump and keep his own stock, equipment and implements. But he will be there as their nominee, on terms to be arranged, so long as they continue to give him a proper livelihood and he continues to farm what is left to him in a workmanlike manner.

Mr. Turton

On the last occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture used the word "bailiff." Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the farmer will be an employee of the agricultural committee?

Mr. Thomas Macpherson (Romford)

Would not "agent" be a better word?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

The word "nominee" covers a variety of terms which might be used. If the farmer elected to carry on the rump, he would be the tenant of part of the farm. If the whole of it were requisitioned, and he came out and then went back, he might be the bailiff of the agricultural committee, or its agent. It would all depend on the terms arranged between him and those in authority. It is essential that this arrangement should be flexible. Conditions will not be the same in every case. The basis of the arrangement must be that the farmer should get a livelihood and that what is left of the farm should be farmed in the most efficient manner. The need for the Amendment, therefore, does not exist, and I ask the Committee not to accept it.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

There are cases where the Amendment is necessary. I ask the Financial Secretary to consider the case of a farm which was improved to a value above 160 per cent. of the 1939 value after 1939 by something in the nature of a drainage scheme. If the land is requisitioned, the compensation payable will not take into account the value above 160 per cent. Although the Amendment would not entirely compensate the farmer, it would give him more nearly fair compensation for the loss which would have occurred if he had tried to let the farm. I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree that, while the great bulk of the cases—to use his own expression—may be covered better than they were in the old days, there is a small number of anomalous cases which require help not at present provided in the Bill.

Mr. York

I do not know why the Financial Secretary should complain that we continue to press this matter. He will remember that, after an interjection by myself asking what the Government meant by saying that they would help the farmer through the agricultural executive committees, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture replied that he would be able to give us more information later on. I have his words: I should hope to be able to give more details upon Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948; Vol. 446. c. 1128.] We want those details. That is what we are asking for. The last thing we heard from the Financial Secretary was anything but the giving of further details. In a week the Committee can expect to be given a full explanation. I am convinced that Section 30 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, cannot be used for this purpose, for the simple reason that there is a prerequisite before compensation can be paid, and that is disturbance. In order to achieve disturbance, the farmer must have left his holding. There are cases where farmers have had to leave their holdings, but these are only a very small minority. I do not believe that the Government can use Section 30, but that was one of the hopes which the Parliamentary Secretary offered and upon which we were to receive further details. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture can give us those details.

Further, the Minister suggested that our Amendment would be partly met by the increased compensation available. That suggestion left the impression that the whole of the compensation received would go to the tenant. It is nothing of the sort. Rental compensation is paid to the landlord, who is having a raw deal in this matter. He cannot, by reason of the fact that the tenant is in trouble, ask the tenant for any of the 60 per cent. increase. Rental compensation does not help to any appreciable extent.

7.45 P.m.

The third point which was offered was in relation to tenant right compensation, but that was a terrible suggestion. If the Financial Secretary had realised what it is, he would never have suggested it. It is the farmer's working capital. Is the Financial Secretary seriously suggesting to the Committee that the tenant should use the working capital of the fanner to recoup himself for losses caused by the Government? That was an outrageous thing to suggest to the Committee.

The fourth point was that reimbursal under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, would he upon a more liberal scale. That may be so, but the promise is very vague. Those who have had anything to do with assessing claims for compensation know that it is a matter of argument between the compensation officer and the person claiming. It is difficult for us to accept that nebulous promise as being capable of being put into effect. I should like to believe that it could be, but I know far too much about Government valuers, having been one myself for a short time, not to be aware that their job is to keep compensation down. I do not believe there is any help along those lines.

We suggest a minimum of two years' disturbance compensation, or its equivalent. There is a very sound basis for that suggestion. On the Wentworth site, the time that the site is occupied is three years. We went to some trouble to try to get the Ministry of Agriculture to take action under Section 30. That would leave two years of disturbed occupation, without any compensation. That is our minimum. In addition to those two years, some farmers have had a higher actual loss during the period of requisition than before. Some farmers have been more unfortunate. Part of their farm was requisitioned, say, in 1943. They got it back in 1946 or 1947. In 1948, they are having another piece of their farm requisitioned, which means that a large part of their livelihood is taken away. As soon as they look like getting their farm into its working position, they have another piece taken away. It is fantastic to believe that any farmer can make a living in those circumstances. How are the Government, who are responsible for that state of affairs, proposing to meet the position, unless by a suggestion such as we make, the operation of which can be assessed with a fair degree of accuracy?

I have here a list of farms affected by opencast requisitioning. There is a dairy farm of 176 acres of which 88 acres have been taken away, bringing that farm down almost to a smallholding level. Yet the stock is on the farm. Where will the farmer get the feedingstuffs for it. It is very much cheaper to grow one's own feedingstuffs than to buy them, and nowadays what one grows is very much better quality than the stuff one buys. I will not weary the Committee with these long lists, but I have lists of the actual losses made by various farmers under this system. The Government's efforts to meet this case are difficult to understand, and I am not sure that they exist. If the Government would accept this Amendment, everybody would know where they stand, and the losses which farmers are sustaining every year could be related to the compensation which they are paid. If the suggestions of the Financial Secretary are all that is left to the unfortunate farmers, they will not get justice, and it is quite certain that they will be seriously out of pocket on something on which I am convinced the Government did not mean them to be out of pocket.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson (Romford)

While I was listening to the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), I wondered if he had really heard what the Financial Secretary said. He talked as if no proposals had been made by the Government. When this Bill first came before the Committee, the greatest sympathy was felt in all quarters for farmers affected by opencast mining, and representations were made to the Financial Secretary, the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary, with the result that undertakings were given in Committee and again tonight which not only meet the situation but show that the Government, in this case as in other directions, are handling agricultural interests with sympathy, understanding and fairness. What could be more fair than the proposal which the Financial Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary have elaborated tonight—

Mr. Turton

Surely the man would lose his freedom? It would be far better to give him due compensation and let him retain his freedom.

Mr. Macpherson

When the national interest is concerned, we cannot all claim to have our freedom. We all understand that. We are all liable to have our business or industry interfered with in the national interest. The point to remember is that this is a temporary dislocation of the farm economy and that as a rule it lasts only about three years—

Mr. York

It will be nearer 10 years.

Mr. Macpherson

The papers from which the hon. Member was reading say that it is generally about three years.

Mr. York

The actual requisitioning of the ground is, on the average, for three years, but the damage to the fertility and growing capacity of the soil lasts somewhere around 10 years.

Mr. Macpherson

I would like to register this, that we on this side of the Committee who are interested in agriculture consider the Government's proposals fair and reasonable, and I am quite sure that they will be welcomed by the whole agricultural industry when they are properly understood.

I would like to refer to the proposal elaborated by the Parliamentary Secretary the last time we considered this Bill, that where the operations of opencast coal mining are likely to make the farm uneconomic, the farmer will have the option of having his whole farm requisitioned by the Ministry, and himself installed as the Ministry's agent or bailiff. That is the method followed in the requisitioning of certain types of ships, and was a practice extensively followed during the war, when the Ministry of Transport, on requisitioning a ship, paid the ship-owner interest on his capital and handed the ship back to him to manage on their account. I see no reason why that procedure cannot be followed in connection with any farm sufficiently affected to justify that course. In those circumstances, the farmer will not suffer any loss of capital as was suggested by the hon. Member for Ripon.

Mr. York

He has already lost.

Mr. Macpherson

The farmer whose farm is requisitioned for opencast coal mining will suffer no financial loss; he will be able to follow his livelihood, he will have his income as the bailiff or agent, and his farm will be restored to him when the opencast coalmining operations are finished. I do not see what more we can ask from the Government, and I trust that the Opposition will not press this Amendment, which is not only unnecessary but, in view of the very generous way we have been met by the Government, just a little ungracious.

Mr. Baldwin

It surprises me that an hon. Member representing an agricultural constituency, such as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson), can defend the Government on this occasion. He rather gave the show away by saying that what is proposed to be done is in the national interest. Obviously, he puts that forward as a reason why the man to be dispossessed should not be paid a penny. Just because something is in the national interest, one individual should not have to stand the racket. If the nation wants a thing, let the nation pay fairly for it. I hope that the hon. Member, on thinking it over again, will not feel that a farmer should stand the racket of being dispossessed because the nation wants something underneath his land. Surely a man who has 20 acres of his arable land requisitioned should be compensated on a much larger scale than one year's rent, which means nothing to him when he cannot reduce his overheads. He has to keep the same implements, he cannot get rid of the tractor, and he has to retain the same men, and so his overheads go on all the time. Two years' rent for having part of one's farm taken away, thus unbalancing the whole show, is not unreasonable, and I hope the Government will think again.

The Chairman rose—

Mr. York

Are we not to have a reply—

Hon. Members

Order.

The Chairman

The hon. Member should resume his seat when the occupant of the Chair rises. The hon. Member must forgive my saying that I have noticed a disinclination on his part to do that on more than one occasion.

Mr. York

On this occasion, as on the last, you in your wisdom, Major Milner, decided that the Debate ought to come to a close. I would not question that as a Ruling, but I have a right, have I not, to ask that I should have a reply to some of the questions I asked the Government spokesman? I was rising to make that request.

8.0 p.m.

The Chairman

The hon. Member should address himself to the Chair and the Chair would then probably call upon him, but he will appreciate that there is no compulsion on the Minister to reply further.

Mr. York

I was only asking that I might have an answer to a perfectly proper question which could and ought to be answered. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said on the last occasion that he wanted a little more time to look into certain points. I put those points to him again and I ask him again, may I have an answer?

Mr. C. Williams

If we are not to have an answer, may I first congratulate the Government on two points? One is that for the first time they have behind them an hon. Member supporting their policy. The second point on which I congratulate the Government and the Front Bench is

that they have an hon. Member supporting them whose ignorance and lack of knowledge of this subject clearly entitle him to sit on the Front Bench sooner or later. Those are indeed matters worthy of consideration.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown) indicated dissent.

Mr. Williams

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is shaking his head because he cannot give an answer on this. I find myself in an awkward position because I thought he would give an answer on a matter which affects the farming interests of this country. We have heard a great deal today about the absolute necessity of encouraging the farmers and giving them confidence, but we have had speech after speech showing that we are likely to wreck the confidence of the farmers in the Government and now, upon a matter which the ordinary tenant farmer has followed fairly closely, the Government are unable to give an answer. That is not encouraging the agricultural industry, although I realise that even if the Government gave an answer, it would not he of any help at all.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 78; Noes 236.

Division No. 70.] AYES. [8.5 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Renton, D.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R Haughton, S. G. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Baldwin, A E. Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C. Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Beamish, Maj. T.V.S Hogg, Hon. Q. Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)
Bennett, Sir P. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ropner, Col. L
Birch, Nigel Jarvis, Sir J Scott, Lord W.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells) Jennings, R. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Bossom, A. C. Langford-Holt, J. Spearman, A. C. M
Bower, N. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E, A. H. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Lloyd, Mai. Guy (Renfrew. E.) Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Low, A. R. W. Studholme, H. G.
Challen, C. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Sutclifle, H.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Manningham-Buller, R. E Touche, G C.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Marples, A. E. Turton, R. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Davidson, Viscountess Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Walker-Smith, D.
Digby, S W. Mellor, Sir J Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Cower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Wheatley, Col. W. J. (Dorset, E.)
Dray son, G. B. Odey, G. W. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Drewe, C. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond) Osborne, C. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Duthie, W. S. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. York, C.
Gage, C. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Gammans, L. D. Prescott, Stanley
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Ramsay, Maj. S TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grim[...]ton, R. V. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and
Brigadier Mackeson.
NOES.
Acland, Sir R. Gunter, R. J Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Adams, Richard (Balham) Guy, W. H. Popplewell, E.
Attewell, H. C. Haire, John E (Wycombe) Porter, E. (Warrington)
Austin, H. Lewis Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Proctor, W. T
Ayles, W. H. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Pryde, D. J.
Bacon, Miss A Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Pursey, Cmdr H
Balfour, A. Harrison, J. Ranger, J
Barstow, P. G. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Rees-Williams, D. R
Barton, C. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Battley, J. R. Herbison, Miss M Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Bechervaise, A. E Hobson, C R. Rogers, G. H. R.
Belcher, J. W. Holman, P. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Benson, G. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Royle, C.
Berry, H. House, G. Sargood, R
Beswick, F. Hubbard, T. Scollan, T.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Scott-Elliot, W
Bing, G. H. C. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Segal, Dr. S
Blyton, W. R. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Sharp, Granville
Boardman, H. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Shawcross, C. N. (Whines)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Braddock, T (Mitcham) Janner, B Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Bramall, E A. Jay, D. P. T. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Simmons, C. J.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Ship[...]ev) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Brown, George (Belper) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Skinnard, F. W.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Jones, Erwyn (Plaistow) Smith, C. (Colchester)
Bruce, Maj D. W. T. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Keenan, W. Snow, J. W
Burke, W. A. Kenyon. C Sorensen, R. W.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) King, E. M. Soskice, Sir Frank
Chamberlain, R. A. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldt. E Sparks, J A
Chater, D Kinley, J. Stamford, W
Cluse, W. S Lee, F. (Hulme) Steele, T
Cobb, F. A. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)
Cocks, F. S Leslie, J. R. Stubbs, A. E.
Coldrick, W. Lever, N. H Sylvester, G. O
Collins, V. J. Levy, B. W. Symonds, A. L.
Colman, Miss G. M. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Comyns, Dr. L. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Cook, T. F. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Longden, F. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Corlett, Dr J McAdam, W. Thomas, John R (Dover)
Cove, W. G. McGhee, H G Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) McGovern, J. Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) McKay, J. (Wallsond) Tiffany, S.
Deer, G. Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.) Titterington, M. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey McKinlay, A. S Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Delargy, H. J McLeavy, F. Turner-Samuels, M.
Diamond, J. MacMillan, M K. (Western Isles) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Dodds, N. N Macpherson, T. (Romford) Vernon, Maj. W F
Donovan, T Mallalieu, J. P. W. Viant, S. P.
Driberg, T. E. N. Mann, Mrs. J. Walker, G H
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Mathers, Rt. Hon. G. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Dumpleton, C. W. Medland, H. M. Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C Mellish, R. J Warbey, W. N
Edelman, M. Messer, F. Watson, W. M.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Middleton, Mrs. L. Webb, M (Bradford, C.)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Millington, Wing-Comdr E R Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Evans, A. (Islington, W.) Mitchison, G. R. Wells, W. T (Walsall)
Evans, John (Ogmore) Morley, R. West, D. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Morgan, Dr. H. B Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)
Ewart, R. Moyle, A. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Fairhurst, F. Murray, J. D. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Farthing, W. J. Nally, W. Wilkes, L.
Fernyhough, E Naylor, T. E. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Foot, M. M. Neal, H. (Claycross) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Forman, J. C. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Oldfield, W H Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T. N Orbach, M. Williams, W. R (Heston)
Ganley, Mrs. C S Paget, R. T. Williamson, T
Gibbins, J. Paling, Rt Hon Wilfred (Wentworth) Willis, E.
Gibson, C. W Palmer, A. M. F Wills, Mrs E A
Gilzean, A. Pargiter, G. A Yates, V. F.
Glanville, J. E (Consett) Parker, J. Younger, Hon Kenneth
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Parkin, B. T. Zilliacus, K
Grey, C. F. Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)
Grierson, E. Paton, J (Norwich) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Pearson, A Mr. Collindridge and
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side) Perrins, W Mr. Wilkins.
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side) Perrins, W

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in Committee) considered.