§ Mr. WoodburnI think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is not 100 per cent, correct. Under Clauses 23 and 24 the Government contract out of a quite considerable amount of compensation for certain decisions of local authorities, and under Section 19 of the original Act, I gather, it is possible by a little manoeuvring to force that compensation off the Government on to the local authority.
§ The Lord AdvocateIt is impossible to give an encyclopaedic exposition of what the Bill does, and I prefaced all that I have said by saying that broadly the effect was to get a general picture. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right —there are certain qualifications in Clause 23 and other Clauses about that matter, but broadly, as I see it at any rate, what I stated is the effect of the Bill. As I say, it is concerned with financial adjustments regarding development charge, and it is quite inaccurate to describe it as selling planning down the river or as the destruction of the whole system of planning that is enshrined in the Act of 1947.
§ Dr. MorganA very just criticism.
§ The Lord AdvocateThat is the first of the general points, made as an attack on the Bill. The second that was made, and which was made by both the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire, was that public authorities acquiring land for public purposes will get the land for a less sum under the Bill than private individuals buying land in the open market. That argument, coming from those it came from, surprised me. It is interesting to see them as the champions of private enterprise against the grasping local authority.
However, the fact is that ever since compulsory acquisition was introduced 1291 in Scotland, ever since the Land Clauses Act, 1845, local authorities acquiring for public purposes have acquired land at much lower sums than that land could be sold for between a willing buyer and a willing seller in the open market. There is no innovation in what we are doing, and we think it is right that this should be so, because a local authority is not acquiring land for a speculation or for private purposes but for public purposes. It is perfectly proper in such circumstances that the authority should be able to acquire land at a less price than it could be acquired at in the open market, if there were no restrictions on price, by a willing purchaser.
§ Mr. D. JohnstonSurely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right on that? Surely under the 1845 Land Clauses Act the procedure was a jury assessment of the value of land, which came out very much, if not quite, the same as the market value in the open market?
§ The Lord AdvocateI myself have personally conducted many of these compulsory acquisition arbitrations and I cannot recollect one in which the price ultimately arrived at was anything like as high, in the case of an acquisition compulsorily, as it would have been in the open market between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Certainly the Bill introduces no novelty in that matter. It leaves the situation where it was, with the preference given in the way of a lower price where a public authority is acquiring for a public purpose.
§ Mr. WoodburnI think there is some slight misunderstanding about the point that both my hon. and learned Friend and I made. We are not only anxious to protect the local authorities. We think every member of the community as well should be protected from being fleeced. The point is not that local authorities get land on the cheap. It is that local authorities are placed in an embarrassing position when some other member of the public is allowed to be fleeced.
§ The Lord AdvocateAll I am saying is that fleecing, if there was or has been any fleecing, has been going on ever since 1845, and it will not be altered in the future. If what is desired is that 1292 private speculation in land should be forbidden, and that existing owners of land should not be free to buy or sell in the open market, then, no doubt, Amendments to that effect will be put down, but that would be a very substantial innovation upon the situation that has existed since the beginning of time in land tenure in Scotland.
§ Mr. T. FraserIn keeping with the 1947 Act.
§ Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)Is it not true that under the Bill the local authority will have to pay the owner the existing-use value plus the established claim for development value as at 1947 plus interest from July, 1948, to June, 1955, at 3½ per cent, less tax? Is that a better proposition than the 1947 Act?
§ The Lord AdvocateThat is the situation. It is existing-use value plus the un-exhausted balance, plus the interest; that is the basis. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that an inquiry was held to investigate the financial consequences and the parties concerned were satisfied, or at any rate they have hitherto indicated satisfaction, with the basis which was then suggested and which is now embodied in the Bill.
Let me come to the third and only other main criticism made of the general structure of the Bill—the criticism by more than one hon. Member that the Bill has not provided for betterment. The Bill does not deal with the question of betterment. If it is desirable that a provision concerning betterment should be made, that can be done later. The existing scheme for betterment, which was the scheme in the 1947 Act, has broken down, and the Government are satisfied that the present scheme to deal with development is capable of being economically operated without confusing it with betterment complications. The attempt to do that, made in 1947, has admittedly not worked in practice. We are satisfied that the right thing to do is what the Bill does—to clear up the situation in regard to development. If it is found that some feasible and practical scheme for betterment can be introduced later, that can be done, but we feel that the Bill is complicated and lengthy enough without adding that further complication to it.
1293 I want to deal with one or two specific questions which were raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. First, my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) raised several interesting points on the Clauses and, in particular, criticised what he regarded as the undue restriction of compensation in Clause 23. I am glad of the support on this Clause of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). If my hon. Friend looks at the matter again, I think he will see that these restrictions are justified in the circumstances, but if there is any restriction to which he has particular objection, no doubt he will raise the matter later.
He and one or two other hon. Members spoke of the 1948 values and the necessity for an authoritative body to pronounce on the variation in the purchasing power of money between 1947 and the present day, so that compensation could be adjusted up or down in order to take account of the change in the value of money. Such a step has never been adopted in this country, and if it were introduced into the Bill it would be a startling and complicating innovation. We have adopted the principle established in the 1947 Act that only development value existing before 1st July, 1948, is to be compensated for by public funds, and adherence to the 1947 claim, and the amount which is claimed for, is an integral part of the scheme under the Bill.
My hon. Friend spoke of the advisability of reopening claims which had already been determined or which, for one reason or another, had not been made. We have deliberately and expressly not made provision for that. We are satisfied that the number of cases in which there are no claims cannot be large and that the amounts of them must be small. At the time these claims fell to be lodged, great publicity was given, and these people have only themselves to blame if, notwithstanding all that publicity, for one reason or another they did not choose to lodge a claim.
§ Mr. Thornton-KemsleyWill my right hon. and learned Friend say whether they have only themselves to blame if they were excluded by de minimis provisions from making the claim and yet subsequently had to pay a development charge?
§ The Lord AdvocateThey had ample opportunity to know precisely what were their legal rights. If people get ample opportunity to put in a claim and, for one reason or another, do not choose to do so—
§ The Lord AdvocateIt has never been thought in this country that an opportunity should later be given to them to open their claim. That would be quite wrong.
§ Mr. Thornton-KemsleyI am afraid my right hon. and learned Friend has not understood the point I made.
§ The Lord AdvocateThe reason which I have given is the first reason we are not allowing the reopening of cases where there have been no claims. The second reason is that the Bill will confer substantial benefits on people who have not made claims. They can develop their land in the future without paying development charge or they can sell it at the full development value.
The third reason—and if the other two are not satisfactory to my hon. Friend, perhaps this will satisfy him—is that, try as we have tried, it has proved impracticable to devise a basis for making a concession to those no-claim cases which would not upset the whole scheme of the Bill. Those are the reasons we have not allowed the reopening of those claims.
§ Mr. ManuelI have a letter dated 19th November from the Joint Under-Secretary of State in connection with a case in my constituency into which I was inquiring. It deals with the possibility of the recovery of development charge. I had a very nice letter from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at that time, and the concluding words were:
He will have an opportunity of claiming at the appropriate time.I take it that that is not the type of case with which the Lord Advocate is now dealing. The assurance in the letter might be very useful to me in the future, for it is a definite promise thathe will have an opportunity of claiming at the appropriate time.Is the appropriate time yet here or has it passed?
§ The Lord AdvocateI could not answer that question without knowing more of the details. If the hon. Member will let us see the letter, we shall be able to go back to the circumstances and tell him the answer.
Another matter raised was that of the Clause dealing with cleared-site value. Both the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire raised issues upon that Clause. I do not know whether one makes assurance doubly sure by repeating it, but I think the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire wanted to know whether the district valuer, in operating the Clause, would take cognisance of the proposed use of the land or of the site, and the answer is that the valuer would value the house as an unfit house without regard to its future use. The future use does not enter into the picture when we come to fixing the value.
§ Mr. ManuelOr rent being paid.
§ Mr. T. FraserWhat right has the Lord Advocate to say that the district valuer will disregard the future use to which these houses are put? Is he going to give instructions to the district valuer, or is there any statutory instruction available to the district valuer, which will insure that he will not have regard to the future use of these houses?
§ The Lord AdvocateThe answer is that the district valuer must exclude any special value attributable to the proposed use to be made of the land and the property. He takes the existing-use value only and shuts his eyes to future prospective possible uses.
§ Mr. FraserThat is exactly my point. Some of these houses have been standing for 100 years. The local authorities are required under the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill to take over these houses and patch them up, so that they may continue in use for another 15 years. It seems to me that that is not having regard to the future use of the land but to the existing use and the existing value of the property. The property owner who is being relieved of the property will, in my submission, expect to be given some compensation for the property if it is to be continued in use for another 15 years.
§ The Lord AdvocateAs I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, he now 1296 admits that this Clause, with regard to cleared-site value, does confer a substantial benefit on the local authorities. That is what we have been saying all the afternoon.
§ Mr. WoodburnThe Lord Advocate may not be able to make the position clear today, but we should like him to look into it. If the houses are not to be demolished, what becomes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that the cost of demolition will be deducted from the value to be paid? We cannot deduct the cost of demolition if the houses are not to be demolished.
§ The Lord AdvocateI do not want to enter into a Committee stage debate. I have endeavoured to explain the Clause as clearly as I can, and I am prepared to stand by what I have said with regard to the meaning of the Clause. If there is any dubiety about it, no doubt we can clear it up at a later stage.
A further point raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was with regard to the meaning of existing-use value in respect of agricultural land. I think that he wondered whether, when a local authority was buying agricultural land for housing, it would pay something more than the agricultural value. The answer is that the compensation is for existing use. The existing use is agricultural and therefore the value paid to that particular owner will be agricultural value.
I think the same hon. Member also asked whether there would be repayment of a development charge under this Bill where somebody had already paid the development charge. The answer is that the charge will be repaid to that person up to the amount of his claim or of the charge, whichever is the less. That is the effect of one of the earlier Clauses in Part I of the Bill.
§ Mr. McInnesA claim on the fund?
§ The Lord AdvocateYes. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire dealt with, I think, the case of a hospital which paid more than the existing-use value for land and had also paid the development charge, and he wondered what the situation would be. In that case, the development charge having been paid, the authority would, of course, get back the amount of the development charge—up 1297 to the amount of the claim—from the fund, on whatever basis it had purchased the land, whether it had purchased it on existing-use value or on any other value.
I have tried to cover all the points that were made and all the questions that were asked. If there are any which I have not expressly covered, that is not due to a deliberate evasion; it is only because I have not a full note of some of the other points. Let me close with a reference to the terms of the Amendment on the Order Paper. As I have said, the primary object of this Bill is to provide a system of compensation for loss of development value which, we submit, is a fair and reasonable solution of the problem for all the parties concerned.
What is perhaps remarkable is that the main purpose of this Bill is not directly challenged by the terms of the Amendment. The terms of the Amendment are based, as I read them, upon two things. First, there is the complaint that there is no provision in the Bill for recovering betterment, and secondly, the complaint that the Bill will militate against essential planning by local authorities.
So far as the first is concerned—the provision for recovering betterment— that would be no reason at all for refusing this Bill. Betterment is a separate and independent issue which has nothing to do with the object or scheme of the Bill. It may be that some scheme can be devised to achieve some solution of the problem of betterment. None is suggested in the terms of the Amendment,
§ nor in the arguments which have been addressed to the House. Its presence in or absence from this Bill would be no help at all to solving the problem which this Bill sets out to solve. Why, indeed, should the purpose of the Bill be deflected by reason of a separate and distinct problem which is not directly related to the one for which we are seeking to find a solution? This first reason for the Amendment is nothing less than a red herring drawn across the track to introduce something utterly unrelated.
§ Let me turn to the other ground put forward for the Amendment—that the Bill will militate against essential planning by the local authorities. That ground is based on a misunderstanding of the effect of the Bill. So far from militating against essential planning by local authorities, the Bill will enormously facilitate it. The very Clauses which have been under discussion this afternoon—Clauses 64, 68 and 42, to mention only three of them—constitute a substantial advantage for local authorities in the way of carrying out their planning schemes. Indeed, the first of these Clauses will remove defects and hindrances on local authorities which have been part of the law of Scotland ever since the Land Clauses Act, 1845, and they constitute a positive and definite contribution towards solving the difficulties of local authorities in Scotland with regard to housing.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes. 209.
1301| Division No. 94.] | AYES | [7.0 p.m. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Davidson, Viscountess |
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) | Deedes, W. F. |
| Alport. C. J. M. | Brooman-White, R. C. | Digby, S. Wingfield |
| Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Browne, Jack (Govan) | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. | Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T | Donner, Sir P. W. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Bullard, D. G. | Doughty, C. J. A. |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Campbell, Sir David | Drayson, G. B. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Carr, Robert | Drewe, Sir C. |
| Banks, Col. C. | Channon, H. | Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston | Duthie, W. S. |
| Baxter, A. B. | Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Eocles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M. |
| Beach, Maj. Hicks | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) | Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L | Fisher, Nigel |
| Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) | Cole, Norman | Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F |
| Bennett, William (Woodside) | Colegate, W. A. | Ford, Mrs. Patricia |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Conant, Maj. R. J. E | Foster, John |
| Birch, Nigel | Cooper-Key, E. M. | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) |
| Black, C. W. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E. | Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) |
| Bowen, E. R. | Crouch, R. F. | Gammans, L. D. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. | Crowder, sir John (Finchley) | Garner-Evans, E. H. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Crowder, Petre (Ruislip— Northwood) | George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd |
| Braine, B R. | Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | Glover, D. |
| Godber, J. B. | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. | McKibbin, A. J. | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Gough, C. F. H. | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) | Russell, R. S. |
| Gower, H. R. | Maclean, Fitzroy | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. |
| Graham, Sir Fergus | MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) | Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. |
| Grimond, J. | Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) | Scott, R. Donald |
| Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. | Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Hare, Hon. J. H. | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Maude, Angus | Snadden, W. MoN. |
| Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye) | Maudling, R. | Scames, Capt. C. |
| Harvie-Watt, Sir George | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Medlicott, Brig. F. | Speir, R. M. |
| Heath, Edward | Mellor, Sir John | Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) |
| Henderson, John (Cathoart) | Moore, Sir Thomas | Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.) |
| Higgs, J. M. C. | Morrison, John (Salisbury) | Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard |
| Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) | Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. | Stevens, G. P. |
| Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) |
| Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Neave, Airey | Stewart, Henderson (File, E.) |
| Hirst, Geoffrey | Nicholls, Harmar | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Holland-Martin, C. J. | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray) |
| Hollis, M. C. | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Studholme, H. G. |
| Hope, Lord John | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. | Sutcliffe, Sir Harold |
| Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Nugent, G. R. H. | Teeling, W. |
| Horobin, I. M. | Oakshott, H. D. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) | Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. |
| Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.D | Tilney, John |
| Hurd, A. R. | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Touche, Sir Gordon |
| Hutchison, Sir Ian clark (E'b'rgh, W.) | Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) | Turner, H. F. L. |
| Hutchison, James (Scotstoun) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) | Turton, R. H. |
| Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. | Osborne, C. | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Hylton-Foster, H. B. H. | Page, R. G. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Perkins, Sir Robert | Vosper, D. F. |
| Jennings, Sir Roland | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Wade, D. W. |
| Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L, W. | Peyton, J. W. W. | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Kaberry, D. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone) |
| Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Pitman, I. J. | Wall, P. H. B. |
| Kerr, H. W. | Ward, Miss l. (Tynemouth) | |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Powell, J. Enoch | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Langford Holt, J. A. | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) | Watkinson, H. A. |
| Leather, E. H. C. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. | Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Profumo, J. D. | Wellwood, W. |
| Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Ramsden, J. E. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. | Rayner, Brig. R. | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Linstead, Sir H. N. | Redmayne, M. | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Wills, G. |
| Longden, Gilbert | Remnant, Hon. P. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Renton, D. L. M. | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) | Ridsdale, J. E. | |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Roberts, Peter (Heeley) | |
| McAdden, S. J. | Robertson, Sir David | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| McCallum, Major D. | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) | Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and |
| McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. | Robson-Brown, W. | Mr. Richard Thompson. |
| NOES | ||
| Acland, Sir Richard | Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Edelman, M. |
| Adams, Richard | Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) |
| Albu, A. H. | Burke, W. A. | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Burton, Miss F. E. | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) |
| Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) | Carmichael, J. | Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon C. R. | Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Fernyhough, E. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Champion, A. J. | Finch, H. J. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Chetwynd, G. R. | Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) |
| Balfour, A. | Clunie, J. | Follick, M. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Coldrick, W. | Foot, M. M. |
| Beattie, J. | Collick, P. H. | Forman, J. C. |
| Bence, C. R. | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) |
| Benn, Hon. Wedgwood | Cove, W. G. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Benson, G. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. |
| Bing, G. H. C. | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Gibson, C. W. |
| Blackburn, F. | Daines, P. | Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. |
| Boardman, H. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Deer, G. | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianetty) |
| Bowden, H. W. | Delargy, H. J. | Hale, Leslie |
| Bowles, F. G. | Dodds, N.N. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Brockway, A. F. | Donnelly, D. L. | Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) | Hamilton, W. W. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J, C. | Hannan, W. |
| Hargreaves, A. | Mason, Roy | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) | Mayhew, C. P. | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Hastings, S. | Mellish, R. J. | Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Messer, Sir F. | Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) |
| Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) | Mitchison, G. R. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) | Monslow, W. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Moody, A. S. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Hobson, C. R. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. | Steele, T. |
| Holman, P. | Morley, R. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Holmes, Horace | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Houghton, Douglas | Mort, D. L. | Stross, Dr. Barnett |
| Hoy, J. H. | Mulley, F. W. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Hubbard. T. F. | Nally, W. | Sylvester, G. 0. |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Oliver, G. H. | Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Orbach, M. | Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin) |
| Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe) | Oswald, T. | Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) |
| Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) | Padley, W. E. | Thornton, E. |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) | Timmons, J. |
| Jeger, George (Goole) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Tomney, F. |
| Jeger, Mrs. Lena | Palmer, A. M. F. | Usborne, H. C, |
| Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Pannell, Charles | Viant, S. P. |
| Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) | Pargiter, G. A. | Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) |
| Jones, David (Hartlepool) | Parker, J. | Weitzman, D. |
| Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Parkin, B. T. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Jones, T. W (Merioneth) | Pearson, A. | Wells, William (Walsall) |
| Keenan, W. | Popplewell, E. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Kenyon, C. | Porter, G. | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| King, Dr. H. M | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Kinley, J. | Proctor, W. T. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Lawson, G. M. | Pryde, D. J. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Rankin, John | Willey, F. T. |
| Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Reeves, J. | Williams, Rev. Liywelyn (Abertillery) |
| MacColl, J. E. | Reid, Thomas (Swindon) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) |
| McGovern, J. | Reid, William (Camlachie) | Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don Villy) |
| Mclnnes, J. | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. | Williams, W. R. (Droyisden) |
| McLeavy, F. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N) | Willis, E. G. |
| McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.) |
| MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Ross, William | Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside) |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Shackleton, E. A. A. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E | |
| Mann, Mrs. Jean | Short, E. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Manuel, A. C. | Shurmer, P. L. E. | Mr. James Johnson and |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A. | Silverman, Julius (Erdington) | Mr. John Taylor. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
-
cc1238-90
- TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL 20,345 words