HC Deb 03 June 1957 vol 571 cc963-77
Mr. J. N. Browne

I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, to leave out "any local or" and to insert "the receiving or any".

Would it be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if this, which is the first of a group of Amendments, were taken together with the Amendment in Clause 10, page 9, line 17, to leave out from "impose" to the end of line 20, and to insert: on any authority any duty other than a duty relating to any water supply or sewerage service required for the purposes of the scheme". and the Amendments to the Second Schedule, in page 26, line 15, to leave out "local or", in lines 20 and 31, to leave out "local or public" and in line 40, to leave out from "imposing" to "who" in line 42 and to insert: any duty on any public authority he shall give notice of his intention to the receiving authority and any public authority affected by the modification

Mr. Speaker

If that is for the convenience. of the House, I have no objection.

Dr. Dickson Mahon

May we have a note of those Amendments again? I certainly did not hear them.

Mr. Browne

The two main Amendments are those in page 8, line 38, and in page 9, line 17. They both refer to taking out the words "local authority". The last four Amendments to the Second Schedule are more or less consequential.

Mr. Speaker

I think they can be treated as such when we come to them.

Mr. Browne

The first Amendment, the substance of which was discussed in Committee, makes it quite clear that any statutory duty placed on an authority by a town development scheme can only be upon the water and sewerage authority or authorities concerned and upon the receiving authority in its capacity as housing authority as extended under the Bill.

The House will realise that under the Bill, a receiving authority is only a housing authority, because in Clause 8 (2) a receiving authority is a local authority and in Clause 27 (1) a local authority is a local authority within the meaning of the principal Act—namely, a housing authority. Thus, while a town development scheme may indicate that particular parts of an area are reserved for schools, recreation grounds, fire stations and so on, the authority responsible, even though it were the receiving authority, as it might be in the case of a county council, will not be obliged to proceed as indicated. It will, in relation to the overspill area, assess the needs and priorities for the provision of these services other than housing in the same way as for others parts of its area of authority.

6.30 p.m.

This proposal, which arises out of a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), is carried forward in the second Amendment, which also takes out the reference to the local authority. This debars my right hon. Friend from himself placing on the receiving authority any new duties consequent upon my right hon. Friend's modifying a town development scheme, and this is highly desirable. if my right hon. Friend makes a suggestion which the receiving authority agrees then the receiving authority can of course submit an amended scheme, but it must agree first. if it did not agree to the suggestion, it would be unfair to impose the default procedure under Clause 16, because the receiving authority cannot be held to be in default simply because it failed to do something which it wished not to do but which the Secretary of State by modifying the scheme forced it to do.

We think it wise to give this power in relation to water supplies arid sewerage because more than one authority is frequently involved. In the same way, through the Second Schedule, as we propose to amend it by the last four of the Amendments now under discussion, and which four are all virtually drafting Amendments, those authorities retain full rights to object, as does the receiving authority itself in its capacity as the authority promoting the scheme and jointly responsible for it. Those four Amendments, by altering the reference in the Bill to the local authority, and by making it quite clear that the obligation is restricted to the water and sewerage authority and to the receiving authority rather than to an unspecified authority, clear up entirely what the responsibilities and duties of the receiving authorities are.

Mr. T. Fraser

I am not quite sure that I know what the position is. I assumed from my study of these Amendments that the Government were merely seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State, in modifying a town development scheme, would be limited to dealing with the statutory duties of the local authority, that is to say the duties to provide water supplies or a sewerage scheme. The Joint Under-Secretary of State, however, said that by his amending the Bill in this way, limiting the Secretary of State in his modification of a town development scheme to dealing with the provisions of water supplies and sewerage schemes, he was limiting himself in some way in exercising his default powers. That I cannot understand.

Mr. Browne

What concerned us in Committee was that the Secretary of State might modify a town development scheme in such a way that a receiving authority not wishing to modify it might be defaulted for having failed to do something which my right hon. Friend had instructed it to do against its wishes.

Mr. Fraser

The hon. Gentleman has not the same recollection of what happened in Committee as I have. That position was foreseen by hon. Members in Committee, but the other position that was foreseen by hon. Members of the Committee was that the receiving authority might undertake as part of a town development scheme to provide a public hall or some recreational facilities to make the necessary provision for an overspill population. Clause 10 speaks of a receiving authority providing a town hall, a public hall, playing fields, public parks, and says that that becomes a duty.

Mr. Browne

No. It does not become a duty under the scheme. It is one of its ordinary duties as an education authority or whatever it may be. It is not a duty under the scheme. It is simply one of its duties, which it has to fulfil in its area. It cannot be defaulted by my right hon. Friend for failing to provide a school, fire station or town hall.

Mr. Fraser

It can be defaulted by the Secretary of State for failing to provide a school or fire station, but not a town hall, under existing legislation.

Clause 10 says that any duty of a town development scheme imposed should be undertaken by "any local or public authority"—the "receiving or any public authority" as the expression would be by the Amendment. The Clause says it shall be a duty of that authority. Within the town development scheme there will be or ought to be a proposal to provide recreational facilities, playing fields, a public hall, and that sort of thing. If there is not such provision in a town development scheme Glasgow's overpsill problem will not be solved. The Joint Under-Secretary will remember that we called his attention to the experience in Fife and elsewhere where efforts have been made to attract miners from Lanarkshire. His attention was called to the fact that the failure to provide these things has proved a serious impediment to the transfer of the miners. If the scheme whereby we take hundreds of thousands of people out of Glasgow is to be a success then the receiving authorities will have to make town development schemes under which they will perforce impose upon thmselves the duty to provide recreational facilities. "Not under this Bill" does the hon. Gentleman say?

Mr. Browne

The scheme may mention the provision of these things, and the duty under this Clause is laid on the receiving authority, but the receiving authority only in its capacity as the housing authority. The receiving authority, as I explained in moving the Amendment, is confined by the terms of the Bill to its function as a housing authority. Its duty is in relation to its function as a housing authority, not the other functions to which the hon. Member has quite rightly referred.

Mr. Fraser

The receiving authority, which, incidentally, will always be a housing authority, which provides in a town development scheme for sites for industrial development—provides, perhaps, factories—will be doing so as a housing authority? Of course not. It will be doing it as a receiving authority according to the terms of Clause 10.

Clause 10 says that when a receiving authority undertakes, as part of a town development scheme, to provide facilities for industrial development, the inclusion of this provision in the scheme makes it a duty upon the receiving authority to provide them. If that is not so, words have ceased to have the meanings which have hitherto been assigned to them. The Joint Under-Secretary still insists that a receiving authority is only a housing authority and has a duty to provide only houses. If it has the duty to provide houses only why do we say that a town development scheme may include provision for accommodation for the carrying on of industrial or other activities, appropriate public services, facilities for public worship, recreation and amenity and other requirements …"? Why does it say that all these would be included and then go on to say that any of these things when included in a scheme would become the duty of the authority? Why does it say that if it does not mean it? That is exactly what Clause 10 (1) says. If these things are included, they become the duty of the receiving or public authority, that public authority being the authority which, generally speaking, would provide water supply and sewerage schemes. The Joint Under-Secretary says that all this is tied up with the default Clause, but if all these things become the duty of the authority under Clause 10 (1) the Secretary of State has taken power in Clause 16 to exercise default powers wherever the local authority fails to give effect to a duty under a town development scheme.

I welcome the Amendments as far as they go. They go a little way towards making quite clear that the Secretary of State cannot modify the schemes, to impose additional duties on a local authority, except in relation to water supplies and sewerage. We are glad that the Amendments go as far as that, but we do not feel at all comforted that the position of the authorities is fully protected. We think that the authorities are not being trusted, despite the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary has said before, and has repeated today, that the Government trust the local authorities.

Our quarrel with the hon. Gentleman is that in this Clause he does not trust the local authorities, because he provides that local authorities should do a duty and he reserves to the Secretary of State default powers to require a local authority to carry out that duty should it default.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Fraser

I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, at the end to insert: Provided that where the receiving authority is a county council they shall consult with the district council for the district in the preparation of any such scheme, and any duty which is proposed in the scheme in respect of the provision of facilities for recreation and amenity and other requirements may be undertaken by the district council. During our discussions in Committee, many of my hon. Friends referred to the position of the district council, which would appear to be overridden in the Bill. I think that on two occasions the Government undertook to have another look at the wording and consider whether there could not be some protection for the district council written into the Bill, or some recognition in it of the work undertaken by the smallest and perhaps most democratic form of local authority.

The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that where a receiving authority is a county council, that council, in the making of a town development scheme, will consult with the district council, the smaller local authority. It seeks, however, to provide that … any duty which is proposed in the scheme in respect of the provision of facilities for recreation and amenity and other requirements may be undertaken by the district council. I emphasise "may be".

The reason for the Amendment is fairly obvious. The district council are not often consulted by their larger brother, the county council. When a county council undertakes art overspill agreement, and follows that with a town development scheme, it may well think that it has sufficient to do to discuss the plan in general with the exporting authority. It might well completely ignore any provision that is made or is being made, or any plans that have been made, by a district council for the provision of a community centre or a public hall. Many of the village halls in Scotland are now provided by district councils, and so are many playing fields and recreation grounds.

6.45 p.m.

If no provision is made for the receiving authority to consult with the district council, we may easily find that the district council is in the course of spending a good deal of money on building a public hall or constructing a new playing field or public park whilst the county council, at the same time, is considering over-building the whole area with houses to take Glasgow's overspill population. Furthermore, the District Councils' Association take the view that, as the Clause is drawn, if Lanarkshire County Council, to take an illustration, were to contemplate making an overspill agreement with Glasgow, with the intention of housing the overspill in the village of Strathaven, the county council might discuss that plan with Glasgow.

It might discuss the number of families to be accommodated and the amenities, that would be available to Glasgow's population when it came to Strathaven. Provision might be made for the accommodation of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 people from Glasgow. It would appear from Clause 10 (1) that if Lanarkshire County Council included playing-field accommodation or a public hall in a town development scheme, the provision of those things would become the duty of the county council. Within the terms of the Bill, it would appear that the district council would not be free to carry out the services for people in small communities which up to now it has provided.

We do not want to set the county council and the district councils at each other's throats. All that the Amendment proposes is that there should be consultation with the smaller authority. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that a county council should never ride rough-shod over a district council and that there should be this consultation, and that if there is to be provision of some of the things mentioned in the Amendment, and written into Clause 10 (1)—some of the services normally provided by a district council—it should be possible for the district council to continue to provide those services even when they are part of a town development scheme.

We have made this permissive and not mandatory. We have said that a district council "may" provide these things because we do not want to take the function willy-nilly from the county council. We want to provide for adult discussion and to provide that the authority mutually considered to be the most suitable to supply the services should go ahead and do so.

Mr. Willis

I beg to second the Amendment.

In the course of the Committee proceedings we raised this point and, as I understand, the Bill does not affect the powers and duties of the district councils. It does not, of course, make it obligatory for a town council to consult with the district council and that would appear to be desirable, particularly if a county council is proposing to engage in activities which might take place in the area of a district council and which might affect its activities.

It would appear to be eminently desirable that the district council should be taken into consultation, and if the position is as was stated during the Committee stage, then it would appear that there can be no harm in stating it in the Bill. There is undoubtedly a great deal of misgiving at present and whilst the Government may say that the Bill covers this point, it would be much better in the eyes of the district councils, in particular those who are affected, if it was stated in the Bill that their position was preserved. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. C. M. Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns)

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept this Amendment. Many of us feel that the district councils in Scotland are not very happy. They have functions to fulfil which are themselves not important, and they feel often that those functions might be increased. If they were increased, probably representation would be easier to find, whereas often in the country districts it is difficult now to find councillors to come forward to take their places on the district councils because so few functions are left to them.

My view always is that we should go to the extreme, as far as we can, to give district councils the feeling that they are not neglected. They are the Cinderellas of local government in Scotland, and where we can recognise them in our legislation, if only by name, on an occasion such as this, without necessarily increasing their functions but letting them know they are not forgotten and that they will be consulted by their big brothers, the county councils, in respect of any powers they have, we should take that course. We might do that here because we are dealing only with those cases where district councils have specific duties in the reception areas.

Mr. John Mackie (Galloway)

If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, I agree with much of what he is saying about district councils being the Cinderellas of Scottish local government, but does he not think, on reflection, that it would be a rather big jump from graveyards to overspill?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

Yes, that is true, but where they have powers, small though they may be, such as the powers about which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has spoken, it is right that they should be consulted by the county councils in the preparation of an overspill scheme. Those powers are permissive, not mandatory, so I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

The Amendment is simple and understandable, so simple that the wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err therein. Therefore, I do not propose to waste the time of the House with unnecessary words. The Secretary of State for Scotland is probably aware that any departure from this practice in the past has caused friction. Will his hon. Friend now tell us whether he can accept the Amendment, and if not, why?

Mr. J. N. Browne

That last sentence of the hon. Lady is what might be termed a fair question. It was made clear during the discussion on the previous Amendment that no duty can be laid by a town development corporation upon a county council in this Bill other than its duty as a housing authority, that is to say, if the county council is a receiving authority. For that reason, I must tell the hon. Lady that the word "duty" in this Amendment is not applicable, and for that reason only we shall have to reject the Amendment.

I appreciate the feeling of concern, of neglect, of misgivings expressed by hon. Members about the position of the district councils—

Mr. Willis

I cannot understand this, any more than I could understand the previous Amendment. This Clause states that … any duty which it proposes should be undertaken by any local or public authority shall be a duty of that authority. That is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Browne

That is exactly the point I was making.

Mr. Willis

The hon. Gentleman was making the opposite point.

Mr. Browne

The duty of a receiving authority is the receiving authority in its capacity as a housing authority because the definition of the receiving authority in Clause 8 (2) refers to a local authority as the receiving authority. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 27, which is the definition Clause, he will see that it is read in conjunction with the principal Act as follows:

This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act … This means that the duty can only be laid on the receiving authority in its capacity as housing authority. That was the point we dealt with in the previous Amendment. If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will follow me—I know he is engaged elsewhere—

Mr. T. Fraser

I am reading the Clause again.

Mr. Steele

May I interrupt? We are trying to have a consultation to see whether we can follow the hon. Gentleman. What do all these things mean in Clause 10— … the carrying on of industrial or other activities, appropriate public services, facilities for public worship, recreation and amenity and other requirements … We are trying to relate those to what he is saying.

Mr. Browne

The receiving authority has many powers, but they are under other Measures than this Bill, to carry out statutory duties such as education, police and fire. For the purpose of this Bill, however, the receiving authority is the housing authority only, and that is a duty which cannot be undertaken by the district councils.

Mr. Willis

May I put this brief but important point? Nobody on this side of the House understands the Amendment. It might simply be the housing authority accepting a statutory housing duty of a local authority but it can also, and surely does under the town development scheme, accept as part of that scheme other duties.

Mr. Browne

It has other duties to provide other services, but for the purpose of this Bill it is the receiving authority. Its duties to provide fire and police are under other enactments. I was trying to say to the district councils that we appreciate the concern expressed by the House. I can assure the House that the rights of the district councils are maintained intact.

The hon. Member for Hamilton suggested that a housing scheme might upset arrangements for a community centre. The district councils have the right themselves to raise objections, either at the stage when the development plan is promoted, because the town development scheme has to conform with the overall development plan or, as in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, if the overspill town development scheme requires the development plan to be amended, the district council can object at that stage. Thus, it knows exactly what is going on.

As the law stands, district councils have powers of their own. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) mentioned one of the powers. Under the present law, a county council can delegate certain powers to a district council. This is a matter, now and after the Bill is enacted, between the county council and the district council—

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser

No, it is not. It is not a matter between the county council and the district council unless the hon. Gentleman accepts that part of the Amendment which says that there shall be consultation. If he does not accept that, it is a matter not between the two authorities but for the county council.

Mr. Browne

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my carefully prepared sentence. It is a matter between the county council and the district council, and there is really no more reason to require statutory consultation here than there is in respect of many other authorities, such as those concerned with the police or fire services, which are also concerned in overspill development. We do not see that we could add anything to what exists when consultation is the rule and so many other authorities are in exactly the same position as district councils.

Mr. Woodburn

Technically, and according to the letter of the law, the Joint Under-Secretary may be correct in saying that there is no necessity to do things, but a lot of things are desirable even though they are not necessary. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) showed that what we propose is desirable, and he was supported by the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley).

Clause 10 certainly does not lay down as a duty "what we propose, but it specifies some of the things which will be done as a result of the Bill. It may be that it is not possible to specify as a "duty" what we want done. There does not seem to be a definition of "duty" in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a limited interpretation of the word, and unless his definition of "duty" occurs in another Measure, it seems to me that it might be possible to challenge it in a court of law. I should be glad if he would tell us where he obtains his restricted definition of "duty."

Apart altogether from the question of "duty", there is no doubt that local authorities will be carrying out work in connection with providing recreation centres, parks and other things for the incoming population. My hon. Friend suggested that in that event a district council, which has responsibilities for that work, should out of courtesy be consulted. Technically, county councils can delegate many things to district councils, but we are continually receiving complaints that they do not delegate matters in the way they should and that district councils feel starved of responsibility.

Even if it is only out of courtesy to district councils, some such provision as ours should be incorporated in the Bill. If "duty" sticks in the hon. Gentleman's throat, perhaps he will undertake to consider the matter and arrange that when the Bill is in another place some words shall be inserted to provide for consultation with district councils. Sometimes district councils are treated as if they do not exist. My hon. Friend has proposed that we should insert words in order to recognise their existence and to accord them the courtesy of consultation about affairs which are their responsibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the promise for which I have asked. Otherwise, we must contest the Amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 213.

Royle, C. Swingler, S. T. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Short, E. W. Sylvester, G. O. Wilkins, W. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Willey, Frederick
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Skeffington, A. M. Tomney, F. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield) Viant, S. P. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Warbey, W. N. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Sparks, J. A. Watkins, T. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Steele, T. Weitzman, D. Woof, R. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Wells, Percy (Faversham) Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Stonehouse, John Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Stones, W. (Consett) West, D. G. Zilliacus, K.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Wheeldon, W. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Aitken, W. T. Garner-Evans, E. H. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Alport, C. J. M. George, J. C. (Pollok) Maddan, Martin
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Godber, J. B. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William Gower, H. R. Markham, Major Sir Frank
Arbuthnot, John Graham, Sir Fergus Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Armstrong, C. W. Grant, W. (Woodside) Marshall, Douglas
Ashton, H. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Mathew, R.
Atkins, H. E. Green, A. Maude, Angus
Baldwin, A. E. Gresham Cooke, R. Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Balniel, Lord Grimond, J. Mawby, R. L.
Barber, Anthony Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Barlow, Sir John Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Barter, John Hall, John (Wycombe) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Nairn, D. L. S.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Harris, Reader (Heston) Neave, Airey
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nugent, G. R. H.
Bennett, Dr Reginald Hay, John Oakshott, H. D.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Henderson, John (Cathcart) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Bidgood, J. C. Hicks Beach, Maj. W. W. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Osborne, C.
Bishop, F. P. Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Page, R. G.
Black, C. W. Hirst, Geoffrey Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Body, R. F. Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) Partridge, E.
Boothby, Sir Robert Holland-Martin, C. J. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hope, Lord John Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Braine, B. R. Hornby, R. P. Pitman, I. J.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Pott, H. P.
Bryan, P. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Powell, J. Enoch
Burden, F. F. A. Hulbert, Sir Norman Price, David (Eastlaigh)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hutchison, Sir Ian Clarke(E'b'gh, W.) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Campbell, Sir David Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Cary, Sir Robert Hyde, Montgomery Profumo, J, D.
Channon, Sir Henry Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Raikes, Sir Victor
Cole, Norman Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rawlinson, Peter
Cooke, Robert C. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Redmayne, M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Ridsdale, J. E.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Robertson, Sir David
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Joseph, Sir Keith Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Keegan, D. Roper, Sir Harold
Cunningham, Knox Kerby, Capt. H. B. Russell, R. S.
Currie, G. B. H. Kerr, H. W. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Dance, J. C. G. Kimball, M. Sharples, R. C.
Davidson, Viscountess Kirk, P. M. Shepherd, William
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lambert, Hon. G. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Leather, E. H. C. Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Doughty, C. J. A. Leburn, W. G. Speir, R. M.
du Cann, E. D. L. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Duthie, W. S. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Stevens, Geoffrey
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Longden, Gilbert Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrovo) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Storey, S.
Errington, Sir Eric McAdden, S. J. Studholme, Sir Henry
Farey-Jones, F. W. Macdonald, Sir Peter Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fell, A. McKibbin, A. J. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Finlay, Graeme Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Temple, John M.
Fisher, Nigel McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Foster, John Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R, (Croydon, S.) Victors, Miss Joan Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Wills, C. (Bridgwater)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) Woollam, John Victor
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Wall, Major Patrick Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Tweedsmuir, Lady Webbe, Sir H.
Vane, W. M. F. Whitelaw, W. S. I. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Mr. Brooman-White.

Amendment made:

In page 9, line 17, leave out from "impose" to end of line 20, and insert: on any authority any duty other than a duty relating to any water supply or sewerage service required for the purposes of the scheme".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]