HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc820-37

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 5, at end, insert: (3) Where, on an application for planning permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies, a planning decision is made after the commencement of this Act whereby that permission is granted (whether unconditionally or not) and the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

  1. (a) the application shall be deemed to have included, in place of those buildings or works, such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related; and
  2. (b) the permission shall be deemed to have been granted for the other development to which the application related subject to the condition aforesaid.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a new point. The clue to it is contained in the words in the part of the Amendment labelled subsection (3), to deal with the matter where the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission fox the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works.… Assuming that the proposed developer wanted to find out what the planning authority would like him to do so that he would foe more likely to get its permission—for instance, where the developer is building a service road and the planning authority would be more likely to grant him permission if he built it—and the service road is not made a condition of the planning permission, he could not, as the Bill now stands, get compensation for it. That seems unjust. This Amendment is designed to show that, where the work is not the subject of express conditions, and that the service road was included in the application in anticipating the planning authority's requirements, it would be right to include it for compensation.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren

I suggest that this Amendment is another example in this Bill of the unfairness as between the individual developers. The Solicitor-General referred to the provision of a service road. Let us take two examples. One is the developer who is a good developer and who carries out his development on the basis of good relationship. He sees, in relation to development in the area that if there is direct access to the road this is dangerous. He will therefore provide, as a good developer, a service road. If he does that he gets no compensation whatever, but he does get something, because the good developer, by making it safe, and putting the houses back from the other road, gets the increased value in the development.

But let us take the developer who, instead of doing that on a basis of good neighbourliness and proper planning, goes to the local authority to see what is the most he can get away with. He has a talk with the local surveyor and says, "This development is going to take place." The local surveyor says, "If that comes up, you will not get it through. This is a dangerous place and the only correct development is to provide a service road." The developer goes back and puts in his plans for a service road. He has agreed to the proposition, but under this proviso he gets compensation, whereas the previous person does not get compensation. In these instances, because of good planning he gets the increased value of the property he is developing and also compensation because he has been given the tip by the local surveyor that on the basis of good planning it is necessary to put in a service road.

I think that there will be a lot of argument in regard to this Clause. I do not say that people will run away from what has been said, but we all know in practical experience that the most difficult thing to hold people to on occasion is the interpretation of a telephone conversation. As I read this Amendment, it seems to me that the wording is quite plain where the developer had reason to believe that he would not have got his consent other than toy having complied with certain conditions, and the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that the particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development… The "reason to believe" may be a telephone conversation. Then there will be on the local authority the doubt of whether or not such a telephone conversation took place. I think that on the basis of fairness between individual and individual the Amendment is wrong. I think that it also brings forward the opportunity for further acrimony and perhaps even legal argument, and that it is giving compensation where compensation ought not to take place because it is compensation for a piece of development which is on the basis of good neighbourliness and public safety—the real essence of planning. Because a thing is required on a basis of public safety, we are to compensate the landowner because he had some indication that he could not get away with it on a worse piece of planning. The Solicitor-General may think that this Amendment is an improvement. I think that it makes the Bill even worse and means the paying out of public money where it ought not to be paid.

There is another reason for which I am worried. Clause 21 (7) states: In this section the expression 'means of access to a highway' does mot include a service road. I have a feeling that what all this means is that the service road in development has gone for ever, and that because there is the possibility of compensation there will be direct access to main roads. But whether that is so or not, the Amendment means a payment which is not justified in any sense.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

I support the objections to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has put forward. Its effect, as I understand it, is this. An owner of an interest may apply for permission to develop and may get it. Having got it, he would not in the ordinary practice be entitled to compensation. But when all that has been done, the Amendment makes it open for him to come forward and say, "I put only this part of my proposals into the plan which I submitted because I knew that otherwise I would not get permission." Having said that, he can go straight to the Minister and hope to get compensation on the basis that he has received permission to develop only subject to conditions.

One wonders how that is to be proved. It is an entirely subjective condition which the owner of an interest has to establish. I should have expected that the Solicitor-General would have no doubt about the undesirability of putting to the test the question of what was the subjective view of an applicant on a point of this kind at the time that he was making application. No procedure is laid down anywhere as to how this has to be done.

It seems to me that where a developer, because of information that he receives, has reason to think that he will get only conditional permission, his correct course is to put in his application for the permission which he wants. Because of his foreknowledge, he is expecting only conditional permission, and he will receive his compensation because the permission is conditional. That is perfectly adequate and meets the case.

In my view, the proposed provision, which is advantageous to a developer requiring permission and who does something really that he should not do, is very undesirable. In my view, an applicant would be incorporating in his proposal an element which he does not want, because he anticipates that only by so doing will he get permission. He is not doing what, under our system of planning law, in practice he ought to do. The issue is befogged, and it is quite wrong to entitle him subsequently to say to the Minister, "When I did this, I did it only because I knew that otherwise I would not get permission." The Minister will be placed in an intolerably difficult position in determining the merits of the matter. The proposal seems to me to be objectionable at every turn.

Mr. MacColl

The vice of this proposal can be traced back to the original provision in the Bill which exempted service roads from the general principle that access to a highway was not one of the conditions which attracted compensation. We raised this matter in Committee, and I have been kicking myself ever since 20th May that I withdrew my Amendment instead of pressing it to a Division. If an owner develops an estate in which there must be a means of access to the highway, there is no logical reason, if a service road is desirable and is included in the plan, why it should attract compensation.

The official view which was put forward in explanation by the Lord Chancellor in another place gives a clear statement of the position. The noble Lord said: It happens in planning, as in many other things, that development is considered a good development so long as an addition, such as the one I suggested, a service road giving access, is made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 1st November, 1954, c. 877.] The words with point are "development is … a good development." It is the insertion of these conditions—the providing of a proper service road—that makes the development better than it would have been before.

The principle that has been put forward again and again as justifying the Bill is the principle, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), of good neighbourliness: that if all one is required to do is something which any person taking a balanced view of a good development would do, one should not get compensation because one is told to do it. Therefore, the difficulty into which the Government have got and which has led to the Amendment arises really from the original exception which was made of the service road. The only illustration which we have been given of the need for the Amendment is vicious in itself, because the service road should never have been put in this privileged position.

But the Amendment goes much beyond service roads. By the illustration of the service road, we are being led to insert an Amendment which, as my hon. Friend has said, is very wide indeed. It will cover any kind of condition which is put forward, and which is put forward for the general benefit of the community and for the general improvement of the development.

To overcome the difficulty into which the Government have got themselves, they invite the House to expose to compensation a very wide front indeed, a front which throughout the debates on the Bill the Government have again and again said they would not expose. The Government have always taken a firm foothold with the argument that the object of the Bill and the spirit behind it was that there should be, not more compensation than was given under the principal Act, but, in many cases, less compensation.

The predecessor of the present Minister rather mocked us on Second Reading by saying, "I am more progressive than the Opposition, because I shall not allow compensation in cases where under the 1948 Act it would not have been allowed." We have seen what has happened. Stage by stage and step by step, there has been a retreat from that point of view under the pressure of back benchers and property owners on the other side of the House.

My third complaint is the one which was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). If we are to have any kind of test, it should be an objective test and not a subjective test. The only objective test that can be applied is, in fact, this: would the planning authority have attached this condition or not? That is something which it might be possible to determine, but why go exploring into the mind of the developer as to what he thought or did not think about what the planning authority would do?

5.30 p.m.

The only important issue is whether this is something which, if left out, would have been put in toy the planning authority? That is a test which might be a workable one, but to go beyond that and say, not only are we to look at it but also at what the developer reasonably contemplated the planning authority might have to do, is something which staggers my imagination and is out of line with the character, as we know it, of the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. Here he seems to be taking unto himself the responsibility of reading into other people's minds and attributing to them certain motives. In other words, he is setting himself up as a kind of psychiatrist for the property owners of this country in order that he can bring out the real motive which has induced them to put this kind of thing in their plans.

What is the significance attached to the word "only"? Drawing from experience going back to compositions during schools days, I can remember that the place where the word "only" came often made a great deal of difference to the general meaning. I do not know whether I have read "only" right or not in this Amendment. As I understand it, in order to prove a case within this Amendment there must be no other motive prompting a developer to put it in except the motive that had he not put it in he would have had his plans thrown out.

In other words, the more materially minded the developer—the developer who will only respond to the lash of the planning authority whip—the greater the chance of getting compensation. The public-spirited developer who takes the broad view, or who says, "I went to the same school as the planning officer and I think it will please him if I put this in," will not be able to get any compensation. The Minister in his position as psychiatrist will not be able to say, "I am satisfied that the only motive operating in the mind of this developer was the fact that he would lose the plan if he did not put any addition in."

That would be a fantastic level of speculation. We are dealing with the paying out of public money to property-owning interests, and we ought to be fairly certain in an objective and impartial way and in a way which can be defended, that we are doing the correct thing. I suggest it is an insult to the House to ask it at this stage of the Bill to accept a clumsily drafted Amendment of this sort, which arises from an initial viciousness in the Bill which we tried to get rid of upstairs in Committee, and which step by step has inevitably brought us to the present situation in which the Minister is put in a position which he himself would be ashamed to accept.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

In a matter of this kind where public money is concerned the House should apprise itself thoroughly and clearly of what this Amendment seeks to do. I would say that in its present form it opens the door wide to abuse. There appears to be a provision here which legalises the use of a ruse or subterfuge in order to get compensation from the public purse. It is an appalling thing to think of, and it is hardly believable that such a doctrine could be enshrined in a public Statute.

Why do I use the terms "ruse" and "subterfuge"? It is for this reason. In this particular provision where there is an application for planning permission in order to carry out some new development of land, certain plans can be put in which really have no relation to the true intention of the applicant at all. The person who is making the application can say, as this provision tells him to, "Well, if I put in a plant in a certain form I will not get any compensation at all. Then if any question of compensation comes along I shall be despoiled of £x, because I have been foolish and honest enough not to follow out what is prescribed in this particular provision."

The person who makes the application is entitled to put a most elaborate plan on paper in purely theoretical form. It may never see the light of day. But when it comes to a consideration of appraising compensation under this Bill, he will be entitled on that unethical ground to get compensation for something which he never intended to carry out, which has not cost him a penny piece, and yet which may be calculated in pounds, shillings and pence, extracted from the public purse and paid over to him. That seems to me to be an absolute public scandal.

I cannot believe that the Government intend such a legal effect to be given to this particular provision. We ought to be told first of all why this is done. Why should there be this abuse of the public Exchequer, and why are people being encouraged to pretend that they are going to do something not for the purpose of performing it, of really carrying it out, but for the only purpose of converting it into pounds, shillings and pence, in other words, of cashing in on compensation when that comes to be decided?

That is an outrageous thing which cannot be supported on ethical grounds, on any principle of common sense, or upheld in any circumstances. I should have thought that this was the last thing the Government would have done in a Bill of this kind, particularly where people can be compulsorily deprived of their land by local authorities on terms near to confiscation. If those two positions are compared in juxtaposition, namely, deprivation on the one hand and the conferment of this benefit of extra compensation on the other, it is difficult enough to apply a moral rule to this particular provision, much less to attempt any interpretation of that which is quite incomprehensible.

Mr. Skeffington

I think it is right that we should spend a little time on this Amendment, because it does introduce a substantial extension of compensation upon a basis which to us on this side of the House seems not only administratively extremely difficult but morally indefensible. I want first to ask the Solicitor-General how this Amendment will work in practice. Indeed, I thought we might have heard something about it by this time from the new Minister himself. Perhaps he thinks it easier to administer atomic energy in his old office rather than to find out what this peculiar Bill he has inherited means. It is a subject for comment that he has not yet spoken in the debate. I want first to ask a question about the machinery: how this Clause will work in practice.

I am assuming that I am a developer, who learns in some way or another—I suppose I can learn perfectly properly—that a particular feature is likely to meet with the blessing of the planning authority. I therefore incorpate it in my application. I go to the planning authority and permission is given. How then does the Minister learn about this at all?

Obviously, the developer cannot appeal to the Minister because he has got all he has asked for. Is he in fact to go immediately to that Minister after he has got his planning permission and say "Really I have put in a 'phoney' application. I put in features A, B and C because I knew that the local planning authority would like them, but I was not really serious. Now I want to be compensated"? If that is the basis of the matter, it is completely ridiculous.

As far as I am able to understand, there is nothing in the Amendment which shows how this Clause is to operate and what the machinery is. We ought to have a considered answer on that point, quite apart from the moral aspect of this new provision. It seems to us on these benches that where an improvement of that kind is included in the plan, it will have its effect on the value which will attach to the development and so benefit the developer. Why this sort of development should attract compensation, I do not understand. It seems to us, objective as one tries to be, that this is a particular sort of softness to the private developer which does not exist in relation to other bodies—local authorities, for example—which are concerned with this Bill. It is another concession to property owners.

I hope that we shall have an answer, first of all, on the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on the impossible position in which the Minister is going to be put, even when he learns somehow of the application—although we do not know how—and the speculation to which he is to be put as to the motive behind the developer; and secondly, how in any case the Minister is to know about what was included in the application.

I should have thought that a Government which claims for itself rectitude in these matters would have felt that this was opening the door to a most obnoxious feature. I cannot think of any other parallel where one is encouraged to put in an application for something in which one does not believe, and which one has no intention of including in the plan, and having put it in, can then claim money from the public purse, although the features were only inserted in order to get planning permission.

I had hoped that we might have heard something from the Minister himself because he will be the person who will have to decide on the motives of people who apply under this provision. He will be the person, if he is still in his office, of course; I do not know whether he will be; there is an expression about "shifting sands" which may or may not have any connection. I had hoped that the Minister would have felt that it was proper for him to defend this considerable new extension of compensation which he has made on this doubtful principle.

The Solicitor-General

By the leave of the House, and, if I may put the word in its right place, only as a matter of courtesy to hon. Members who have developed these arguments against this Amendment, I would concede that there are arguments both ways about this difficult matter. But perhaps a concrete instance which has actually happened may help to melt their stony hearts on the general principle.

In a certain constituency—not that of any hon. Member whom I see at present in the House—is a very good example. There is a fairly large developed area, developed by numbers of different developers, with service roads in it. The earliest people who put in an application for development of that estate found that the planning authority made the service road a condition of planning permission; and so, of course, every other developer said that he would make a service road with a view to getting his planning permission, the authority having shown where its mind rested.

The result—and this happened under the 1947 Act, so there need be no party bickering about it—is this, that anyone looking at the map of the area will find that, as the law now is, developers A and B, who were not willing to put in a service road unless compelled, may get compensation in respect of the service road, because it was a condition of their application; while the meritorious developers would be left without compensation in respect of the service roads.

5.45 p.m.

That does not seem to us to be quite right, and we think that the balance of justice is secured by a provision of this kind. It is not easy to know where to draw the line. Who is to decide better than the Minister when the circumstances were such that the exclusive, operative factor in the mind of the applicant was his reason to believe that he would not get planning permission without the provision of these works? The Minister is qualified to get all the factors so far as he can.

As for machinery, about which I was asked a question, we are here dealing with compensation for current planning decision, and not past planning decision. Where the Minister so certifies, this matter which was not the subject of condition is to be deemed the subject of condition for the purpose of that planning decision. Therefore, there is really no administrative difficulty, because when the application is made for compensation in relation to that planning decision, and works of this kind exist, then in the course of negotiation the Minister will have to consider whether or not the circumstances are such that he must deem a condition to have existed governing those particular works.

I hope I have cleared up some of the points. I am not quite sure whether I would not like to move the word "only," but that is a matter of grammar rather than of legislative activity. To that extent, I announce my sympathy with the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl).

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for that reply, but it will not do. I do not propose to cover any ground which my hon. Friends have already amply covered, but if the Solicitor-General will look at the Amendment he will see that this deals with a planning decision … made after the commencement of this Act. Therefore, we are not dealing with something which was done in ignorance in the past. We are laying down a code of procedure for the future.

In laying down this code of procedure for the future, we are contemplating that an application for development will be made upon some purely hypothetical kind of footing. Instead of the applicant putting in for the development which he really wants, he puts in for a modified development because he has reason to believe that permission for the original development would not have been granted.

Conditions have got to be inserted because the applicant had reason to believe"— whatever that means; however, it has to be proved— that permission … would not be granted. Therefore, we have one piece of psychiatric investigation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) so amply put it.

But it does not stop there. It goes on to say, in paragraph (a): the application shall be deemed to have included … such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related. Therefore, one goes through a second psychiatric hoop. One then has to decide not only that he had reason to believe that permission would only be granted on the provisions which he had included, but one also has to decide what he might reasonably have been expected to have included if he did not in fact include what he has in fact included. It is a fantastic proposition. It is not as though one did not have to envisage what the original plan would be, without the provisions inserted for the purpose of obtaining the permission which he has reason to believe would not otherwise be granted. One has to go through the process of inserting in the plan what might reasonably have been in the plan if the applicant had not had reason to believe that the development would have been permitted only with the conditions which he has, in fact, inserted.

Why should we not have a simple, straightforward provision that if an applicant wants compensation he should then in the first place put forward in his plan what he actually wants. The local authority could then say, "In your case this will not do. You must have this and that condition in and then you can claim compensation." Why cannot we have that, instead of reversing the process and leaving the applicant to guess what the local authority would require and leaving the Minister to guess what the applicant would have inserted if the applicant had not made the original guess?

There is not the slightest difficulty about requiring that the processes which the Clause requires—namely, inserting in the application what would have been in the application if the Clause had not been passed—should be gone through before the application is made or when the application is originally made, instead of providing that it should be inserted after going through the hypothetical conundra required by the Clause. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friend to vote against this unjustified provision.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 171.

Division No. 235.] AYES [5.51 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Ford, Mrs. Patricia Medlicott, Brig. F.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S) Foster, John Mellor, Sir John
Alport, C. J. M. Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Moore, Sir Thomas
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Nabarro, G D. N.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Neave, Airey
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Glover, D. Nicholls, Harmar
Baldwin, A. E. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Nield, Basil (Chester)
Banks, Col. C. Gough, C. F. H. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Gower, H. R. Nugent, G R H.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Gridley, Sir Arnold Oakshott, H. D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Grimond, J. O'Niell, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D
Bennett, William (Woodside) Hall, John (Wycombe) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Birch, Nigel Harvey, Air-Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Page, R. G.
Bishop, F. P. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Partridge, E.
Bowen, E. R. Harvie-Watt, Sir George Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hay, John Perkins, Sir Robert
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney Heath, Edward Pickthorn, K. W. M
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Higgs, J. M C. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Hirst, Geoffrey Pitman, I. J.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Holland-Martin, C. J. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Powell, J. Enoch
Bullard, D. G. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Burden, F. F. A. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J Profumo, J. D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Raikes, Sir Victor
Campbell, Sir David Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Rayner, Brig. R.
Carr, Robert Iremonger, T. L. Redmayne, M.
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Rees-Davies, W R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Jones, A. (Hall Green) Remnant, Hon P.
Clark, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Kerby, Capt. H. B. Ridsdale, J. E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Kerr, H. W. Robertson, Sir David
Cole, Norman Lambert, Hon. G. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Leather, E. H. C. Robson-Brown, W.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Roper, Sir Harold
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Linstead, Sir H. N. Russell, R. S.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Deedes, W. F. Longden, Gilbert Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Digby, S. Wingfield Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Donner, Sir P. W. McAdden, S. J. Soames, Capt. C.
Doughty, C. J. A. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Speir, R, M.
Eccles Rt. Hon. Sir D. M. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Wrwk & Lmgtn) Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Marlowe, A. A. H. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Fell, A. Marples, A. E. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Finlay, Graeme Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Fisher, Nigel Maudling, R. Teeling, W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Vosper, D. F. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) Wade, D. W. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Thorneycroft, Rt.Hn. Peter (Monmouth) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Wood, Hon. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Wall, Major Patrick Woollam, John Victor
Touche, Sir Gordon Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Turton, R. H. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Vane, W. M. F. Wellwood, W. Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hayman, F. H. Peart, T. F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Popplewell, E
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Herbison, Miss M. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hobson, C. R. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bacon, Miss Alice Holman, P. Probert, A. R.
Balfour, A. Holmes, Horace Proctor, W. T
Bartley, P. Houghton, Douglas Reeves, J.
Bence, C. R. Hoy, J. H. Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Benson, G. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bing, G. H. C. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Blenkinsop, A. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Blyton, W. R. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Ross, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Bowden, H. W. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Bowles, F. G. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jeger, George (Goole) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Brockway, A. F. Jeger, Mrs. Lena Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Skeffington, A. M.
Burke, W. A. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Jones, David (Hartlepool) Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J. Keenan, W. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Champion, A. J. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Snow, J. W.
Chapman, W. D. Lawson, G. M.
Chetwynd, G. R. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Sparks, J. A.
Clunie, J. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Steele, T.
Coldrick, W. Lewis, Arthur Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Collick, P. H. Lindgren, G. S. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Collins, V. J. Lipton, Lt-Col. M. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Logan, D. G. Sylvester, G. O.
Cove, W. G. MacColl, J. E. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McInnes, J. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Cullen, Mrs. A. McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Daines, P. McLeavy, F. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Turner-Samuels, M.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Deer, G. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Warbey, W. N.
Dodds N. N. Mason, Roy Weitzman, D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Mayhew, C. P. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mellish R. J. Wells, William (Walsall)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Messer, Sir F. West, D. G.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Mikardo, Ian Wheeldon, W. E.
Fernyhough, E. Mitchison, G. R. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Fienburgh, W. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Morley, R. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Follick, M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moyle, A. Willey, F. T.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Gibson, C. W. Oliver, G. H. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Oswald, T. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Padley, W. E Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Paling, Will T (Dewsbury) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Palmer, A. M. F Yates, V. F.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Pannell, Charles
Hamilton, W. W. Parker, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hannan, W. Parkin, B. T. Mr. James Johnson and
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Paton, J. Mr. Wallace.
Hastings, S. Pearson, A

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

On this Amendment a Special Entry is being made in the Journals.

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 16, at end, insert: or by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph 13 of the said Schedule (which relates to certain applications under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935)

6.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Under Sections 1 and 2 of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, people have to get consents. In so far as consent proceedings were not completed they were made under the principal Act to be dealt with under the principal Act if they had not been finally determined by the time those Sections were repealed by the principal Act. It is right that such decisions should be treated as planning decisions under this Act and that is what the Amendment does.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]