HC Deb 21 June 1950 vol 476 cc1400-30

8.47 p.m.

Mr. lain MacLeod (Enfield, West)

I beg to move, in page 57, line 8, after "be" to insert "(a)."

I propose, if it is in order, to refer to this and the two following Amendments standing in my own name and those of my hon. Friends, with the exception of the last line of the second Amendment, the reason for which will no doubt become apparent shortly. Those Amendments are in page 57, lines 10 and 19. What I am trying to achieve is this: Clause 91 gives Wolverhampton Corporation powers to establish smokeless zones within their boundaries, and subsection (14), which I seek to leave out, gives an automatic exemption to the Electricity Authority and the Gas Board from the provision of that smokeless zone. I offer an alternative, which I will discuss in a moment or two, in the second Amendment and I take it that we may refer to all three Amendments, which raise entirely the same point, in this discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

Yes, and the House will divide on them separately if necessary.

Mr. MacLeod

The origin of these Amendments was that, on Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends drew attention to this Clause and said that it was without precedent in the exemption which it gave. In fact, they were wrong in saying it was without precedent, but the precedents are confusing and conflicting. These speeches drew a sympathetic echo from the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who said there seemed to be something in the point.

We do not seek to amend subsection (12). In Committee, we had an amiable and friendly discussion on this matter, but the more carefully we looked into the matter the more obvious it became that Private Bill legislation on this subject is not the best method at all, and so it was right to ask the House to declare its point of view on this important matter tonight. Let me make it quite clear that I am not tilting, or attempting to tilt, at the nationalised industries or undertakings as such; I am only objecting because they claim an exemption from what will become the private law in so far as it affects Wolverhampton.

I know that I need not bother tonight to argue the case for the smokeless zones; I am sure that that is common ground for everybody here. But it is worth noticing that there are areas in this country—this Chamber is in one of them—in which over 125 tons per square mile of smoke pollution are deposited annually. In Wolverhampton, the figure is between 75 and 100 tons, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research estimated that the cost of damage to buildings per year was of the order of £30 million. That takes no account of the damage done to life, health, vegetation, or amenities. Wolverhampton's share of that is about £100,000, or a 2s. rate.

I will, if I may, briefly indicate what are the precedents for this sort of legislation, because it is of comparatively recent date that it has come in any form before the House. I wish, first, to refer to the report which the Minister of Fuel and Power put in on this Bill. Obviously, with one eye cocked on what had been said on Second Reading, he said this—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Is this not going beyond the three Amendments?

Mr. MacLeod

With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should have thought not. This report was put in by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and in the Minutes reported to the House it states why the Bill should stand in its present form. I am seeking to show why the view then held by the Minister is wrong. The report says that this is not a question of granting protection to nationalised industries, but of safeguarding the supply of electricity and gas with which the Minister must have been equally concerned had the Electricity Act. of 1947 and the Gas Act of 1948 not been passed.

I can only suggest that we take that report with a considerable pinch of salt. I am seeking in some cases to upset that precedent tonight, which is why I must refer to them, and I take it that it is in order so to do. In 1946, Manchester had the first Bill referring to smokeless zones. No exemption was made for generating stations. In 1948 the Electricity Act was passed. The stations were under the control of the Electricity Authority, but in 1948 the three Acts of Coventry, Salford and Rochdale made no exemption whatever for the nationalised industries. Therefore, if the report submitted by the Minister means anything, it amounts to a claim that he would have been more vigilant than were his predecessors.

In 1949, we come to the main precedent which is the basis for this Clause as it now stands. It is interesting to note that in the Bolton Corporation Bill, 1949, the learned counsel arguing the case for Bolton and against the Electricity Authority's petition was the hon. and learned Member for Islington, North (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) who, at that time was enjoying, or enduring—perhaps that is the better word—a temporary absence from this House. The precedent established in Bolton has been followed ever since, and it is that precedent that I seek to upset tonight. When the Bolton case came before the Committee, the Ministry of Fuel and Power first of all took up the most surprising attitude that they objected altogether to the powers sought to form a smokeless zone. They submitted that the powers sought were unnecessary.

It is fair to say that they retreated quickly from what was clearly an untenable position, and based their case on the main ground that they objected to a local authority having power to veto a development of national importance. I agree with them there. I do not think it right that any corporation in this country should have a right to over-rule a national decision as to whether a generating station is to be set up. I have attempted to cover that point in the Amendments we are now discussing.

There is this difficulty. I would move my second Amendment without line 11, because I understand that it is possible that I might get a more sympathetic answer if I did so. I should like to say, in all fairness, that this Amendment was drawn up by myself and my hon. Friends, with the exception of one line—line 11. That line was inserted to meet the requests of the representatives of the Ministry of Health, before both the Bolton and the Wolverhampton Committees. Therefore, I find it a little Surprising to be asked to withdraw the one line which is foreign to my Amendment; but, if it will help the case, I will gladly do so.

The suggestion I am offering as an alternative is that these bodies—the Electricity Authority and the Gas Board—should be able to go to the Minister of Health, that they should have an Order made and that that Order would be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. I suggest that they should have a special, but not a privileged, position in being able to go to the Minister of Health over the heads, if necessary, of Wolverhampton, for such an Order to be made.

Mr. Nally (Bilston)

On a point of order. Some of my colleagues on this side, and I am certain that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite must be quite clear what is the scope of this discussion. If we are to argue tonight—and I would be glad to have your Ruling, Sir Charles—as to what are the relationships of a gas or electricity board to a given local authority, what it can recommend and what sort of procedure ought to be adopted to apply those recommendations, can we argue that in some detail, as the hon. Gentleman has already argued? Will we be entitled to go ahead on that basis?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I would not like to try to answer that. I understand these three Amendments hang together, and that the hon. Gentleman is seeking a reason why they should be accepted. I would not like to answer the question until the point actually arises.

Mr. Iain MacLeod

I am trying to explain the reasons why the method I offer is superior to the one at present in the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) will understand that that, of course, necessarily involves an explanation of the procedure here put forward as an alternative. I have tried to put before this House, as far as I know them, all the important facts relating to the history and the background of this matter. I have tried to put them before the House whether they tell in favour of my Amendments or against them.

May I say, quite briefly, why I think my alternative is very much superior to the one at present in the Bill? First. let us be quite clear on this point. At the moment, the Minister of Health does not come into this decision on the smokeless zone at all. If my Amendments are not accepted, the Minister of Fuel and Power has the right, with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, to overrule a local authority.

I suggest that it is quite wrong that the Minister of Health should not have a say in these most important matters. It is clear that the omission of the Minister of Health from this position is deliberate. It was argued on the Bolton Bill in these words, "The difficulty is that the argument is before the Minister of Health, and one assumes that he will consult the Minister of Fuel and Power, but he might go off on a frolic of his own." I am sure it is not in order to argue whether or not the Minister of Health is likely to go off on a frolic of his own, but it is at least clear that there is no responsibility on the Minister of Health in this matter, and I submit that that is wrong.

There are great considerations involved. It is true that it is difficult to find a site for a generating station. It is true that there must be a certain subsoil, that the ground must be level and that there must be access to road, rail and water. But if those matters conflict with the demands of public health, then they are entirely unimportant. If there is to be an argument between the national need in the sense of the siting of the station, and public health, if there is to be a conflict between the Minister of Health and Minister of Fuel and Power—" pull devil, pull Noel-Baker"—then, in this matter, I am the devil's advocate.

I believe it is wrong that these authorities and undertakings should claim, as they are claiming, to be outwith the law. They must make their case in the ordinary way as ordinary industries and undertakings have to do. It is of the first importance that we make quite clear that these undertakings are subject to ordinary control. I mentioned earlier that the hon. and learned Member for Islington, North, was counsel in the principal precedent. I should like to end by quoting what he said on this matter: I do not see any reason on earth why any particular body, be it nationalised or not, should have the right to break what will then have been established as the general law governing that piece of territory. The whole object of it is to exclude smoke. I must have the right automatically to generate smoke, smoke including grit. I say no body, nationalised or not, ought to have that right, and I say, being nationalised, they ought not to ask for it. They ought to be ready to cooperate. That is the case that the hon. and learned Member for Islington, North, put before the Bolton Committee. It is exactly the same case that I am putting before the House tonight.

Mr. Alport (Essex, Colchester)

In rising to second the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) I wish to make it clear, as he did, that I am not motivated in any way against the nationalised industries as such in this matter. Perhaps I should be fair in saying that I am not motivated any more than I would be against any great vested interest which attempts to appropriate to itself particular powers and privileges. We make that point because it has been noticeable for some time past that when any question affecting the nationalised industries arises, the party opposite assume the somewhat irrational demeanour of a dog which suspects someone of trying to steal a favourite bone. Their hackles are up, they bare their teeth and emit menacing growls and, although the performance is always interesting, it does not often result in a cool and rational discussion of the problems which might happen to be before us at the time. What we are concerned to establish in this Amendment is a point which we believe to be important—that, in principle, a nationalised corporation or board should not be empowered by law to do something which, if it were done by a private body, would be illegal or anti-social.

Mr. Nally

On a point of order. I must rise again on this point. I am sorry to take up your time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the time of the House, but we must have this clear—not because we resent the comments, for, on the contrary, I think there is something in what the hon. Member has said. We must have this clear—

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

Get on with it.

Mr. Nally

I do not want any impertinence from you.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I was not impertinent.

Mr. Nally

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I may say, through you, that I will not have any impertinence from the hon. Member opposite.

Sir H. Williams


Mr. Nally

I am on a point of order and, therefore, the hon. Member cannot rise.

Sir H. Williams

I have been described as impertinent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think we need to pursue this. Let us get on with the business.

Sir H. Williams

I have been described as impertinent, but the only remark was that I thought the hon. Member was wasting an extraordinary amount of time in putting his point of order. I merely said, "Get on with it," which seemed to me a sensible piece of advice which he did not take.

Mr. Nally

I withdraw the comment "impertinent" and substitute "juvenile." We should like some guidance, irrespective of party politics, as to whether or not, in our discussions tonight, we are entitled to argue the relationships of a given city corporation, irrespective of its political complexion, with a nationalised board or a regional board or what have you. I should be very glad if you could tell us, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether we are entitled, in the discussion which will ensue, to argue a general case about the relationships of municipalities to regional boards or national corporations. While arguing this Bill, are we entitled to argue the general principle involved, as has previously been done?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, hon. Members are not, but I cannot understand why this Debate is going on so long. I understand that the Amendment is to be accepted and I do not know why there should be these long speeches.

Mr. Alport

Naturally, my hon. Friends and I are delighted to hear this news, because, quite clearly, it is a victory for those who are concerned to ensure that, in a matter of this sort, a point of principle is maintained regardless of any prejudices which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might have had in the past. If, in fact, the Amendment is to be accepted, then, as I say, we are very grateful to hear the news.

We also hope that in that event the Amendment will form a precedent for future relations between the nationalised industries and the law of this country, because it is vital that we should not allow the nationalised industries to grow up into being what we have known in history, overmighty subjects who try to abrogate for themselves a position vis-á-vis the law which is not allowed to persons or private corporations. If the information which you, Sir, have courteously given with regard to this Amendment is true, then no one will welcome it more than ourselves. We welcome it as another example of the importannce in this House of maintaining a vigilant and active opposition to ensure that the previous customs of hon. Members opposite are not pursued—for instance, when they were accustomed, as we have seen in precedents mentioned by my hon. Friend, to try and obtain for their particular organisations a specially privileged position vis-á-vis the rest of the community. I will not waste the time of the House in pursuing the point which, I understand, is about to result in a surrender by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East)

I feel that we have been shadow boxing for the last half hour. As one of the Members for Wolverhampton I was tempted to intervene in the first five minutes of the speech of the hon. Member because that so far as the corporation are concerned agreement has been reached with the Government to accept what he proposes. I think the House might well get on with other business without going into a long critical argument.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)

As the Minister responsible for answering for the gas and electricity industry, I would say that there is no difference between us in the case which was made by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) in moving his Amendment, which we are very glad to accept.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I am glad to gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that subsection (14) of this Clause as it stands is to disappear and be replaced by the machinery which has been proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) and Colchester (Mr. Alport). I will not detain the House for more than two minutes in saying why, as one of the Wolverhampton Members, I am particularly glad this is the case. As was pointed out in Committee, subsection (14) of the existing Clause does afford considerable protection in the case of new installations of the gas and electricity authorities in so far as town and country planning permission is required by them as by any other developers. The great evil was that it afforded no protection in the case of existing installations of those authorities.

During the Second Reading Debate on this Bill I ventured to point out that an existing installation of the British Electricity Authority in Wolverhampton—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We are now dealing with a very simple Amendment, and the hon. Member is going beyond it.

Mr. Powell

I was endeavouring to show why the machinery which we are now substituting, which gives much greater control over existing installations than does the present Clause, is particularly desirable in the case of a Wolverhampton Bill. I was doing so by drawing attention to the fact that it is an existing installation of the electricity authority which is responsible in Wolverhampton for a grave menace both to public health and road safety.

Having drawn attention to this state of affairs two and a half months ago, I am glad to have learned in the last few days that the British Electricity Authority are engaged in taking steps to remedy this state of affairs. I believe that in the case of Wolverhampton they are shortly to invite tenders for preventive measures, which tends to show that pressure of the kind which has been brought to bear in this House, both on Second Reading of this Bill and tonight by my hon. Friends, is useful and bears fruit.

Several Hon. Members rose

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Surely we can come to a decision.

Mr. Nally

I must congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), on the fact that the case he intended to put, about which I was rather doubtful in any event, has been put so much more adequately by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). The plain fact of the matter is simply this, that this particular Amendment is not a matter of controversy at all, but has been used, certainly within the limits of order, as a rather shabby, shop-soiled attempt to make out a case which should be put on bigger issues than this Bill with which we are dealing.

9.15 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

We have had an announcement on the Government's attitude to this Bill, but we have not had one about the attitude of the promoters.

Mr. Baird

On a point of order. I said just now that the Wolverhampton Corporation are quite neutral about it. They could not care less.

Sir H. Williams

We have had an announcement from the Government Front Bench that the Government accept the Amendment.

Mr. Robens

With great respect, if I said that I was wrong to do so. What I intended to say, even if I did not, was that the Government recommended the House to accept it.

Sir H. Williams

I am much obliged. I wanted to get it on record. The Debate is of greater importance than many hon. Members realise. I have examined probably every Private Bill that has been promoted in the last 20 years.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Do not we know it!

Sir H. Williams

The trouble is that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), does not trouble to do the same. On studying these Bills we find savings for various interests. Sometimes the interest is the Postmaster-General's. I think he is—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Surely this is going far beyond the Amendment before the House?

Sir H. Williams

The Amendment before the House is entirely a saving in the interest of two specific corporate bodies, namely, the British Electricity Authority, which, though not a State property, is an extension of the power of the Crown, and the Gas Council. Therefore, the principle affects them all. I remember when a similar Bill—perhaps not quite similar—was before Parliament, providing for the construction of Batter-sea power station. The most stringent conditions were imposed, quite rightly, on the London Power Company as a result of the pressure of the citizens of Westminster, Chelsea, Lambeth and Battersea, to make sure that from those great chimney stacks there should not be a great deal of grit and smoke, and the rest of it, emitted. They spent, I believe, £500,000 on research to achieve the desired results—quite apart from the other costs. It is most important that there should be proposals designed to protect the public and citizens. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, is constantly telling us about the evil conditions that prevail in his constituency. In our attitude here we are supporting his case.

Mr. Ellis Smith

It is very refreshing to hear that, because I cannot forget that a number of hon. Members, including the Government of the day, fortified themselves against Stake's proposals to municipalise the transport of that area.

Sir H. Williams

What connection is there between the municipalisation of the North Staffordshire tramways and the preventing of North Staffordshire from being deluged with smoke, I do not understand, but I think the trouble was that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, left for Manchester, where they are always under umbrellas.

Quite seriously, my hon. Friends have been trying to do something in the interests of public health, and to protect the public against these new monopolies, and it is right that the public should be protected against these monopolies. The two monopolies to which I refer are the British Electricity Authority and the Gas Council. I rejoice that the House of Commons is unanimous on this matter.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

Although I have been tempted by the observations of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) to speak at great length, I wish only to say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) is to be congratulated upon having moved what is, I think, a very helpful Amendment, and I hope that the support which we have had for it from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power will not deter the House from accepting it. This, after all, is a House of Commons matter, and on this side of the House we can only commend the Amendment, as, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary has done. This Amendment has a very valuable element of principle in it—that these powerful bodies and nationalised boards shall not be permitted to have automatic exemption from the laws which affect other people—and I hope that it will be accepted by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 57, line 10 at end, add: or (b) varied by an order made by the Minister on the application of the Electricity Authority or the Gas Board: Provided that in relation to an order under paragraph (b) of this subsection—

  1. (i) before making application to the Minister for such order the Electricity Authority or the Gas Board (as the case may be) shall give notice to the Corporation of their intention so to apply stating the general effect of the proposed order to which the application relates; and
  2. (ii) before making such order the Minister shall consider any representations which may be made by the Corporation and shall give the Corporation an opportunity of being heard thereon;"

In line 19, leave out subsection (14).—[Mr. Iain MacLeod.]

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

I wish to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, lock, stock and barrel. This is one of a series of Bills which, I suspect, will come before the House as time goes on, and which are perfect demonstrations of "empire building" by county boroughs, town clerks and these county borough buccaneers who wish to subordinate the interests of the countryside to the interests of the big cities.

Before I continue with my remarks, I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friends the fact that they need have no false sense of party loyalty if they deem fit to support myself and those of my hon. Friends who intend to oppose this Bill, in the Division Lobby if necessary. I have taken advice on this point, and, should the Government express the view that they are in favour of this Bill, there is no need for my hon. Friends to support the Government view in the Division Lobby. In other words, they are perfectly free morally to come in with us.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

And at any other time.

Mr. Snow

I talk with a little knowledge, as a former Government Whip, and they can take that as coming from the horse's mouth.

I hope also to carry with me into the Division Lobby, if necessary, some hon. Members opposite. I see the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) in his place, and I feel sure that I need not impress upon him the general effect of this sort of Bill on his sort of division and divisional interests. It is not just a question of the existing interests of county boroughs. This is just the thin end of the wedge; this is just the way in which boroughs will so enlarge themselves that they can claim county borough status; gradually, we shall see the amenities of our countryside whittled away in the interests of people who care not in the least for the retention of those amenities of our English countryside. I see the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) sitting there. What will the effect of this sort of Bill be on her very beautiful constituency? I have no intimate knowledge of her division; what knowledge I have is of many years ago; but I have a suspicion that she has in her constituency boroughs which would like to become county boroughs and so enlarge themselves as to despoil the countryside.

I am no scholar, but I think it was Cobbett who referred to London as the "Great Wen." That is an expression which can be applied to any number of these Midland cities, such as Wolverhampton and others. This rash of wens in the Midlands is a threat which we have got to resist. Already, we have that ghastly phrase "conurbation of towns," and this Bill will merely enlarge that same conurbation.

I should like to get down to more specific detail about this very unpleasant Bill. In so far as it imposes boundary extensions there are two particular parishes referred to—the urban district of Tettenhall and the parish of Lower Penn. I draw the attention of hon. Members who represent rural constituencies to what this Bill really means. In spite of the plans which have been prepared by such authorities as Sir Patrick Aber-crombie, and in spite of the support of the Ministry of Health for development which will not affect the amenities of the countryside, here we have a town clerk sitting in a county borough riding against the wishes of the Ministries and securing the support of members of the constituency who feel it to be a matter of local loyalty—

Mr. Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East)

Can my hon. Friend tell me with which Ministry he disagrees?

Mr. Snow

I was going to enlarge upon that. The County of Staffordshire, about which I am talking in particular, has in it six county boroughs. If this Bill goes through each of these county boroughs, and, I suspect, other local authorities as well, will all be nibbling away and gradually encroaching on the countryside.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must speak of Wolverhampton and nothing else. He must not deal with the county borough of Staffordshire.

Mr. Snow

I was trying to explain that if this Bill goes through, it will be followed by other Bills of the same sort. I understand that the Minister of Health has said that he does not object to considering boundary extensions when these extensions are needed for additional houses. What is the position under this Bill? In point of fact, the councils of the districts involved were getting on with the job very well. One cannot divorce the record of housing of the Wolverhampton Corporation from the record of housing of these rural or urban districts, because the Government's policy is such that the housing record of any housing authority is dependent upon the allocations allotted by the Ministry of Health. In a county borough like Wolverhampton we get large allocations for a large number of houses. The small rural districts receive smaller allocations and their record does not appear to be so big. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), will not try and put that one across the House on the basis of trying to prove that his particular housing authority has a particularly good housing record.

In this matter it is the town versus the countryside. We must not base our arguments on false loyalties when it is a question of trying to retain the amenities of the countryside. Let us take the case of the Parish of Tettenhall. It was admitted by the Wolverhampton Corporation, in Committee, that the progress of housing would not be affected by this particular boundary extension, and, if that is so, I do not know why the Minister should support this particular boundary extension, if that is the policy, which I understand to be the case.

Take the case of Lower Penn. I hope that I may be permitted these observations, because this is a very interesting case. I am not sure whether Lower Penn has any connection with the Quaker family of Penn. Has the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), anything to say about that?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Nothing at all.

Mr. Snow

In the 18th century, there was a grand dispute by the great Quaker family of Penn with the Government of Massachusetts, where the Penn family were residing, over the payment of taxes needed for the defence of that State. We have an historical corollary here since the county council rates which I am relating to the taxation in the State of Massa-chusettes are very much lower than the urban rates at Wolverhampton. I might say, in parenthesis, that Members here who represent rural constituencies should bear in mind that if their constituents are so unfortunate as to be cannibalised by these county boroughs, they will perforce be obliged to pay much higher rates.

Mr. Speaker

This is a Second Reading point. The discussion between the country and the town was decided on Second Reading. Therefore, it is out of order on Third Reading.

Mr. Snow

If I might continue on a more specific point included in the Bill, this development in Lower Penn will have one very peculiar effect, that is, if this great county borough of Wolverhampton succeeds in pushing through the Bill. The effect will be that its housing proposals will be sited in the centre of the corporation's sewage works. That seems to me, even in these days of opposition by these county boroughs to the planning of great authorities like Sir Patrick Abercrombie, hardly to be a desirable development of urban sprawl.

If this Bill is to go through, I should like to ask the Minister whether he has consulted the Ministry of Agriculture, because this land at Lower Penn is classified as first-class agricultural land. It seems very peculiar indeed that at this time when so many provisions are made, through the medium of the Provincial Land Commissioners, to prevent first-class agricultural land being absorbed in this way we are solemnly considering a Bill to take over a large slice of very valuable agricultural land.

Mr. Emrys Roberts (Merioneth)

Is not the hon. Member aware that it is always first-class agricultural land the Minister of Agriculture surrenders to other authorities?

Mr. Snow

That may or may not be the case, but I understand that in this case it is not disputed that it is first-class agricultural land. Since the hon. Member has intervened, I ask him seriously to consider what will be the effect in the beautiful valleys of his constituency. What will be the effect in the case of the borough of Dolgelly, or Machynlleth to the valley of the Dyssini, where I have fished for sea trout without success.

Mr. Speaker

Let us stick to Wolverhampton.

Mr. Snow

I will not pursue that any further, but I was subjected to an intervention.

Mr. Emrys Roberts rose

Mr. Speaker

We must keep to Wolverhamption, and not discuss Merioneth.

Mr. Snow

I realise that I have provoked a certain amount of merriment, but I am making the point that this is an argument of town versus country. We passed legislation in the last Parliament about National Parks, and this is just a way of avoiding the provisions for planning our countryside so that our people may retain in the future the amenities and pleasures to be derived from the countryside.

I hope that Members who have at heart the interests of the country will, if it comes to a Division, follow my little gang into the Lobby and not support this dangerous little Bill. It is little, but it is only one of a series. It will be followed by a Bill in the case of Walsall, and I think that there is a Bill in connection with South Shields, when exactly the same position will arise. Exactly the same issue arises there. This is "empire building" by town clerks and people who really ought to know better.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

I do not want in any way to delay the proceedings of this House, but I might point out that I and my colleagues, had we desired, might have appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We could have raised the issue, as mentioned on page 196 of the Manual of Procedure, about Private Bills not passing through two stages on the same day without special leave of the House. We were good enough not to do that and thus delay the business of the House. Consequently, we are now entitled to have a reasonable amount of time to state our case in view of the fact that we were so magnanimous with regard to another part of the procedure.

We object to the Third Reading of this Bill, because in Clause 8 there are 20 words which read: The added areas shall be separated from the existing electoral divisions of the county of which they respectively form a part. They are cold, callous words, marshalled together with 26 soldiers of lead, as someone once described them. What does the connotation of those words imply? We believe that from time to time on the Floor of this House we are going to have this vulgar spectacle of powerful authorities coming here with cash and influence to promote Bills of this sort, so that the entire structure of local government in the future, whatever party may ultimately be in power, will be destroyed. We are asking that a stop be put to this piecemeal approach by powerful—

Mr. Speaker

That is a general argument. We must confine ourselves to Wolverhampton and the Bill and nothing else.

Mr. Davies

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. We are therefore asking Wolverhampton to co-operate with the most intelligent local authorities in the country to bring pressure on the Government to bring into being a re-orientation of the structure of local government. The Wolverhampton Bill will take from the County of Staffordshire quite important territory if it passes through this House. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has emphasised the importance of the loss of agricultural land to the country. I want to emphasise one other point. If I thought that Wolverhampton would be prevented from building one house by stopping this Bill at this present moment, I would not support the Bill. It has been admitted in Committee that this will not interfere with the building programme in Wolverhampton, nor with the structure of one house. Therefore, I have no qualms whatsoever in opposing this Bill, especially as I know that the Staffordshire County Council offered a constructive and reasonable approach to the Wolverhampton authority. I believe that both of those authorities could have got together had not Wolverhampton been so imperialistically minded, and we would not in this House tonight be troubled with this Debate.

Lastly, while Wolverhampton are doing this, it may encourage the City of Stoke-on-Trent and ultimately we may find the City of Stoke-on-Trent, encouraged by Wolverhampton, spreading out into Leek and Newcastle and other areas and the entire concept of the county council will disappear. This is the point which we must remember. Do we want the county council system of government to exist, or do we want to whittle away the powers county councils have? It is the duty of this Government, or some Government in the very near future, to put forward a constructive system of local government so that the county council system can be maintained and authorities like Wolverhampton can have their legitimate rights and also Staffordshire may have their rights.

The Abercrombie Plan in Wolverhampton and district would be nullified if we allowed this Private Bill to pass. I object to this Bill on these principles: (1) it will make the pattern of local government more heterogeneous than it is already; (2) it will make it more and more difficult for any Government in the future to reconstruct local government decently and (3) this kind of powerful pushing of authority by influential boroughs like Wolverhampton and others is a bad thing to encourage. We do not wish to inculcate that kind of pattern of imperialism in government. Remembering that in this House we may feel very dignified but that democracy in Britain did not start with the Mother of Parliaments but with local democracy, I want to see local democracy kept alive. This kind of thing destroys local democracy and local patriotism. With all the force at my disposal I shall oppose this Third Reading.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

In support of the Bill, promoted by the borough of which I have the honour to represent one half, I will make only one brief statement to the House. It is that the procedure of Private Bill legislation, which is part of the custom and law of Parliament, is designed to secure that on the Second Reading of a Private Bill, this House has the opportunity to consider not only the principle enshrined in the Bill itself, but also the repercussions of that Bill by way of precedent or otherwise. Having given a Private Bill a Second Reading, as happened without opposition in the case of this Bill, it goes to a Committee, which judicially considers all the objections from parties concerned, whether corporations or individuals—objections of the kind which have been mentioned by the hon. Members for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) and Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). It then returns to this House with the recommendation of that Committee. This Bill has gone through those stages and I submit that it would be quite wrong at this stage to throw out this Bill—

Mr. Snow

Thank you, that is a challenge.

Mr. Powell

—upon general considerations and considerations of precedent such as have been raised. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading, for that reason if for no other, without dividing.

9.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I think it would be desirable if I intervened for one moment to express the view of the Government on this Private Bill, because it is clear from the special pleading we have heard that there are some quite acute differences of opinion upon it. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, this Bill has had a Second Reading, and has been upstairs in Committee, where it had very full and thorough consideration. All the Government Departments in any way affected have considered this Bill and have made reports upon it. So far as the Government are concerned, we advise the House, and we can do no more than advise the House, that in view of the very careful consideration it has had, it should be given its Third Reading.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East)

I hope the House will give this Bill a Third Reading for various reasons. Before dealing with the general argument raised there is one point I wish to speak upon which was raised earlier on Report stage. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) mentioned the question of water coolers and I would like to answer the point. Wolverhampton is a very progressive town even though at the present time we have a small Conservative majority on the local authority. For a long while now the Labour Party have been pressing for control of those coolers, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, has come round to our point of view.

It is with regard to the proposed extension that I wish to speak. I think that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) was a little hot and bothered about it. I also think he dealt with a serious question in rather a frivolous manner. This is a very small and moderate Bill—

Mr. Snow


Mr. Baird

The Wolverhampton Corporation, in the first instance, were rather ambitious with their boundary proposals for housing purposes. It was only after consultation with the Ministry of Health that a compromise was arrived at, and the Ministry agree that extension as necessary for urgent and immediate housing needs.

Mr. Snow

It is quite true that the demands of Wolverhampton were modified in Committee, but I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether it is a fact that Wolverhampton has no intention in the future of demanding a further extension?

Mr. Baird

The House is not tonight discussing what Wolverhampton may demand in the future. It is discussing the Third Reading of a very moderate and modest Bill. I think it entirely wrong for anyone to suggest that this Bill is evidence of a battle between the town and the country. It is no such thing. Until we get new general proposals regarding local government, Wolverhampton has to build houses for its people. Since the war, Wolverhampton Corporation has had one of the best records in the country in house building. It has one of the most enlightened direct labour building departments and is building houses cheaper than anywhere else I know of. We have used all our available land for building houses. The only land available now is derelict land and this has to be levelled and drained; and now we want a very small area outside the boundary to be brought in for building use.

The county council suggest that the building of these houses should be left to the small urban councils around. They suggest that Wednesfield Urban Council should build 3,000 houses; that the Tettenhall Urban Council should build 5,000 houses and that Wellenhall Urban Council should build 2,000 houses.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot find anything to do with building houses in the Bill.

Mr. Baird

The reason we are asking for this extension is because of urgent housing needs.

Mr. Speaker

That was decided on Second Reading, and need not be argued now.

Mr. Baird

But, Mr. Speaker, the whole reason for this extension is the urgent housing needs of Wolverhampton.

Mr. Speaker

Which, of course, was decided on Second Reading. Housing is something we need not discuss now.

Mr. Baird

This subject has been mentioned in the Debate more than once tonight, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

It was my fault for allowing it.

Mr. Baird

I just want to suggest that these local authorities have only built a few hundred houses between them during the last five years and now are expected to build thousands each to satisfy the housing needs of Wolverhampton. This is a modest Bill.

Mr. Snow


Mr. Baird

I hope that the House will not consider this matter as a struggle between the town and the country. Until we get some reorganisation of local government, towns like Wolverhampton have the right to ask for extensions. It is also right, however, that the Ministry of Health and this House should examine the proposals. The Ministry and a Committee of this House have examined and approved them. They have been accepted as being modest, and, therefore, the House should give a Third Reading to this Bill tonight.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

I want to argue to the same conclusions as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), but I want to dissociate myself completely from his denigration of the town of Wolverhampton as it stands. Of course, he has only recently been adopted by that part of the Midlands. I have lived for the whole of my life in Wolverhampton and district. I find it a very satisfactory place indeed. It has an excellent shopping centre, it is well governed from every point of view and its public buildings and general atmosphere form an oasis in the middle of that part of the Black Country.

I want to discuss Clause 5, but I wished first, in my own interests, to dissociate myself from what I consider to be the rather unfortunate remarks of the hon. Member of Lichfield and Tamworth. I doubt whether the Bill as it is now should have the support of people who live in Wolverhampton. I have in mind, in particular, that part of Clause 5 under which it is intended to take Lower Penn within Wolverhampton's boundaries. The inclusion of Lower Penn would be a striking example of very bad development which I am sure would be in conflict with all planning proposals previously considered by any authority in that part of the country.

As has been said, we have had the assistance of such eminent authorities as Professor Abercrombie; we have had the assistance of the joint planning section of the committee of the council and of the local planning authority. All have said, without exception, that this section of Lower Penn should be retained in agriculture as part of a green belt round that part of the West Midlands. If any part of England is in need of its green belt, it is this section of South Staffordshire. I think that suggestion will be accepted in all parts of the House.

Such development as is envisaged by the taking over of this land would not be in the best interests of the people of Wolverhampton. It would push the countryside much further away from the centre of the town. It would form a dormitory suburb which would be an outstanding example of undesirable urban sprawl. Apart from being contrary to sound planning, it would push the citizens so far away from the civic centre that they would find it difficult to develop that civic sense and loyalty which is important and which should be extended.

From the evidence taken before the Committee, it appears that the Land Commissioners and the Ministry of Agriculture have intimated that, even if this Bill is approved, they will not be prepared to release this agricultural land for any other purpose than its present use. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mr. Baird) has said that it is wanted for housing. Even if the Bill is approved, the Ministry of Agriculture would not be prepared to release the land for that purpose. They recognise that its value to agriculture is so great that they would not be prepared to release it.

The last point I want to make is in reference to a previous speech in the House by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, as reported in the "Labour Gazette," the organ of the Cannock Division Labour Party. He is reported to have said: The question I am asking this afternoon is: What is going to be done to implement that Report and what is to be done to make the Black Country green? I am quite certain that we are not going to make the Black Country green by turning certain parts of it black, which I am quite certain will be the only effect of the Bill as it stands at present. It has been said that the Government have stood out and not given any direct guidance about it. I believe that they ought to have taken a very active part, because I believe that if the Government had taken this Bill as a Government Measure and had examined it in consultation with all the Departments, with the Ministry of Agriculture—

Mr. Blenkinsop

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was reading or was asleep or something, but I thought that hon. Members generally appreciated that I did intervene to put the view of the Government on this Bill.

Mr. Nicholls

The point I was making was that if it is believed that this Bill is a good one, they should have taken it over as a Government Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] They should have given clearer guidance about it, because the argument that I want to make—

Mr. Speaker

This is a Private Bill carried under private legislation procedure, and it cannot be suggested that it should be a Government Bill.

Mr. Nicholls

Perhaps my criticism then is a criticism of procedure in the House of Commons, but as there are so many other points, I do not think we should pursue that one.

The real point is that I am convinced that the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Town and Country Planning have divergent views about this Bill and how it will be operated, but I cannot see how this Bill will be implemented because they will not get the necessary releases from other Departments of the Government. I believe that this Bill should be delayed until the House can be assured that the full meaning behind it can be given effect by all the Government Departments concerned, by their showing unanimity and a decision to support it. Then we shall be discussing a reality and not a sham.

Mr. Nally (Bilston)

I am heartbroken to find myself on the side of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) and in opposition to my hon. Friend close to me who has just spoken. I look upon the hon. Member opposite as a brother and a friend, the sort of brother and friend who, in the literature which I used to read as a child, used to be sent to New South Wales with the instruction that he should never come home. Still, he was a brother. I am sorry to find myself in opposition to my colleague here.

You were quite right, Mr. Speaker, in drawing our attention to the fact that we ought to discuss the Wolverhampton Bill. I am trying to talk seriously about it, and the proposal, quite simply, is this: although the Wolverhampton Corporation could tomorrow night arrive at an agreement with the Staffordshire County Council as to the number of houses it would build on a particular acreage of land, the Wolverhampton Corporation prefers to adopt the method, not of arriving at an agreement tomorrow—I am not exaggerating; I say that quite deliberately, and there are people in the Gallery who would confirm it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] That is not out of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]

There are people who can confirm that the Wolverhampton Corporation could negotiate tomorrow, with Conservative and Socialist members of the Staffordshire County Council and members of urban district councils in the area, an agreement under which certain acreages of land which are embodied in this Bill could, by a co-operative enterprise, become available for the housing of people from Wolverhampton's overspill population. I am bound to say that I am a big city man. I love big cities. Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, London, those are the places I know. My father has the honour to be the leader of the Manchester City Council. He is a big city man. But my father has taken the view, and I take it from him, that this cannibalism—

It being Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Businesswhereupon The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 124.

Division No. 37.] AYES [10.0 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Hamilton, W. W. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hannan, W. Orbach, M.
Awbery, S. S. Hardy, E. A. Padley, W. E.
Ayles, W. H. Hargreaves, A Paling, Rt. Hn. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Bacon, Miss A. Harrison, J. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Balfour, A. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Pannell, T. C.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Hayman, F. H. Pargiter, G. A.
Bartley, P. Herbison, Miss M Parker, J.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Hobson, C. R. Pearson, A.
Blackburn, A. R. Holman, P. Peart, T. F.
Blenkinsop, A. Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth) Popplewell, E.
Boardman, H. Hopkinson, H. Proctor, W. T
Booth, A. Houghton, Douglas Pryde, D. J.
Bottomley, A. G. Hubbard, T. Rees, Mrs. D
Bowden, H. W. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.) Reeves, J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Brockway, A. Fenner Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Richards, R.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Robens, A.
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Janner, B. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Burke, W. A. Jeger, G. (Goole) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Carmichael, James Jenkins, R. H. Royle, C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Johnson, J. (Rugby) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Champion, A. J. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Clunie, J. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Cocks, F. S. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Simmons, C. J.
Coldrick, W. Jones, William Elwyn (Conway) Slater, J.
Collick, P. Keenan, W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Collindridge, F. Kenyon, C. Snow, J. W.
Cook, T. F. King, H. M. Sorensen, R. W
Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Cooper, J (Deptford) Kinley, J. Sparks, J. A.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peekham) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Steele, T.
Cove, W. G. Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.) Stokes, Rt. Hon. R- R.
Crosland, C. A. R. Lindgren, G. S. Stross, Dr. B.
Crossman, R. H. S. Logan D. G. Sylvester, G. O.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Longden, F. (Small Heath) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) McAllister, G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, Harold (Leek) MacColl, J. E. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McGhee, H. G. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
de Freitas, Geoffrey McGovern, J. Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Deer, G. Mclnnes, J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Delargy, H. J. Mack, J. D Thurtle, Ernest
Donnelly, D. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Timmons, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mckay, R. W. G. (Reading, N) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) McLeavy, F. Tomney, F.
Ewart, R. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Fernyhough, E. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Viant, S. P.
Finch, H. J. Mainwaring, W. H. Wallace, H. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Watkins, T. E.
Follick, M. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Weitzman, D.
Foot, M. M. Mann, Mrs. J. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Forman, J. C. Manuel, A. C. West, D. G
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S Mathers, Rt. Hon. George White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Gibson, C. W. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Gilzean, A. Mellish, R. J. Wilkins, W. A.
Glanville, J. E, (Consett) Messer, F. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Gooch, E. G. Middleton, Mrs. L. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mitchison, G. R Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale) Moeran, E. W Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Monslow, W. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grenfell, D. R Morgan, Dr. H. B. Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)
Grey, C. F. Morley, R. Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Gridley, Sir A. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Wise, Major F. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Mort, D. L. Woods, Rev. G. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange) Moyle, A. Yates, V. F.
Gunter, R. J. Mulley, F. W.
Hale, J. (Rochdale) Murray, J. D TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Nally, W. Mr. Baird and
Hall, J (Gateshead, W.) Neal, H. Mr. J. Enoch Powell.
Alport, C. J. M. Baldwin, A. E. Bishop, F. P.
Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Banks, Col. C. Black, C. W.
Arbuthnot, John Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston) Bowen, R.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Bennett, W. G. (Woodside) Braine, B.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Hirst. Geoffrey Raikes, H. V.
Brooke, H. (Hampstead) Hornsby-Smith, Miss. P. Rayner, Brig. R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Horsbrugh, Miss F. Remnant, Hon. P.
Butler, Rt. Hon. Ft. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Howard, G. R. (St. Ives) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Hudson, Sir A. U. M. (Lewisham, N.) Roper, Sir H.
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.) Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Russell, R. S.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.) Hurd, A. R. Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne) Hutchinson, G (Ilford, N.) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Cranborne, Viscount Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Davies, Nigel (Epping) Hylton-Foster, H. B. Soames, Capt. C.
de Chair, S. Jeffreys, General Sir G Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Jennings, R. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Donner, P. W. Kaberry, D. Storey, S.
Drayson, G. B. Keeling, E. H. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Drewe, C. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Studholme, H. G.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond') Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Summers, G. S.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sutcliffe, H.
Dunglass, Lord Linstead, H. N. Taylor, W. J (Bradford, N.)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Erroll, F. J. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Thompson, K. P. (Walton)
Fisher, Nigel Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.) Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)
Fletcher, W. (Bury) McCallum, Maj. D. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Fort, R. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Vosper, D. F.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Manningham-Buller, R. E. Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Marples, A. E. Wakefield, Sir W. W (St. Marylebone)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
George, Lady M. Lloyd Mellor, Sir J. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Wheatley, Major M J. (Poole)
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge) Nicholls, H. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Oakshott, H. D. Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)
Heald, L. F. Odey, G. W. Wills, G.
Heath, Colonel E. G. R. Perkins, W. R. D. Wilson, G. (Truro)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Peto, Brig, C. H. M Wood, Hon. R.
Higgs, J. M. C. Pickthorn, K. York, C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and Mr. Bell.

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 40.

Division No. 38.] AYES [10.10 p.m
Acland, Sir Richard Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.) Gordon. Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Alport, C. J. M. Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.) Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Cooper, J. (Deptford) Grey, C. F.
Awbery, S S. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peekham) Gridley, Sir A.
Ayles, W. H. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Bacon, Miss A. Crosland, C. A. R. Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Banks, Col. C. Crossman, R. H. S. Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Gunter, R. J.
Bartley, P. Davies, Nigel (Epping) Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. de Chair, S. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Bennett, W. G. (Woodside) de Freilas, Geoffrey Hall, J. (Gateshead, W)
Bishop, F. P. Deer, G. Hamilton, W. W.
Black, C. W. De[...]argy, H. J. Hannan, W
Blenkinsop, A. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hardy, E. A.
Boardman, H. Drayson, G. B Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Booth, A. Drewe, C. Hargreaves, A
Bottomley, A. G. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich) Harrison, J.
Bowden, H. W. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Harvey, Air-Codre A. V (Macclesfield)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Ede, Rt Hon. J. C. Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Hayman, F. H.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Heath, Col. E. R
Brook, D. (Halifax) Erroll, F. J. Herbison, Miss M.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Ewart, R. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W
Brooke, H. (Hampstead) Fernyhough, E. Hill Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton) Finch, H. J. Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Hobson, C. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Fletcher, W. (Bury) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Foot, M. M. Hopkinson, H. L. D' A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Forman, J. C. Hornsby-Smith, Miss. P.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Fort, R. Houghton, Douglas
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Hubbard, T.
Chetwynd, G. R. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Clunie, J. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Coldrick, W. Ganley, Mrs. C. S Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Collick, P. Gibson, C. W. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Collindridge, F. Gilzean, A. Hurd, A. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Cook, T. F. Gooch, E. G. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. Middleton, Mrs. L. Sparks, J. A
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Moeran, E. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Hynd, J. B, (Attercliffe) Monslow, W. Steele, T.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Greco Morgan, Dr. H. B Stewart, Michael (Fulhan E.)
Janner, B. Morley, R. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Jeffreys, General Sir G. Mormon, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Storey, S.
Jeger, G. (Goole) Mort, D. L. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.) Moyle, A. Stross, Dr. B
Jenkins, R. H Mulley, F. W Studholme, H. G.
Jennings, R. Murray, J. D. Summers, G. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby) Neal, H Sutcliffe, H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Nield, B. (Chester) Sylvester, G. O.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Oakshott, H. D. Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway) Odey, G. W. Taylor, W. J (Bradford, N.)
Kaberry, D. Orbach, M. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Keeling, E. H. Padley, W. E. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Keenan, W Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly) Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Kenyan, C. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
King, H. M Pannell, T. C. Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)
Kinley, J. Parker, J Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Lee, Miss J (Cannock) Pearson, A. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Pearl, T. F. Thurtle, Ernest
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Perkins, W. R. D Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.) Pickthorn, K. Tomney, F.
Lindgren, G. S. Popplewell, E. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Linstead, H. N. Porter, G. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Powell, J. Enoch Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Logan, D. G. Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Viant, S. P.
Longden, F. (Small Heath) Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W) Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Wallace, H. W.
McAllister, G Proctor, W. T Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
McCallum, Maj. D Pryde, D. J Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
MacColl, J. E. Rayner, Brig R Weitzman, D.
McGhee, H. G. Reeves, J. West, D. G.
Mclnnes, J. Reid, W. (Camlachie) Wheatley, Major M J. (Poole)
Mack, J. D. Richards, R. While, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Robens, A. White, J. Baker (Canterbury)
Mackay, R. W G. (Reading, N.) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.) Wilkins, W. A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Willey, F. T (Sunderland)
McLeavy, F. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Williams, C. (Torquay)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Royle, C. Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E).
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Russell, R. S. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mainwaring, W. H. Shackleton, E. A. A. Wills, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham C.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfiled. E.) Shurmer, P. L. E. Winterbottom, R E. (Brightside)
Mann, Mrs. J. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wise, Major F. J
Manningham-Buller, R. E. Simmons, C. J. Wood, Hon R.
Manuel, A. C. Slater, J. Woods, Rev. G. S.
Marples, A. E. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Yates, V. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mellor, Sir J. Sorensen, R. W. Mr. Baird and Mr. Iain MacLeod.
Messer, F. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Ashton, H (Chelmsford) Grenfell, D. R. Raikes, H. V.
Baldwin, A. E. Higgs, J. M. C. Roberls, Emrys (Merioneth)
Balfour, A. Holman, P. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Bowen, R. Howard, G. R. (St. Ives) Roper, Sir H.
Braine, B. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Ryder, Capt R. E. D
Brockway, A. Fennel Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
Champion, A. J Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.) Soames, Capt. C.
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.) McGovern, J Thompson, K. P. (Walton)
Cove, W. G. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Watkins, T. E.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughlon) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Follicle, M. Nally, W. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh) Nicholls, H York, C.
George, Lady M. Lloyd Nugent, G. R. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Pargiter, G. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Snow and Mr. Harold Davies.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.