HC Deb 09 July 1959 vol 608 cc1618-36

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 32, at end insert:

with other land) otherwise than in accordance with those provisions might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted, the local authority may certify accordingly, setting out the special circumstances in their certificate.

Mr. Mitchison

Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a simple point. As it stands, the Lords Amendment deals with the question of certificates being issued in relation to development which might reasonably be expected. The authority to issue those certificates is the planning authority, and a Clause in the Bill that we are now considering sets out the machinery for that purpose. The Government, by way of the Lords Amendment, seek to introduce a provision that I can summarise fairly in these words, A planning authority may, if it chooses, disregard the development plan and any provisions in it when issuing its certificate. Hon. Members will be able to study the Clause for themselves, but I can see no distinction between that form of words and the rather longer form in the Lords Amendment.

We take the view that that is wrong. For this purpose we go back to the 1947 Act, in order to consider what relation the development plan has to planning permission. In Section 14 of that Act a local planning authority, when deciding whether to give planning permission, is to have regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as material thereto, and to any other material consideration. Later in the same Section there is a provision which enables development orders to be issued, and paragraph 8 of the General Development Order, 1950, provides, in relation to development not in accord with the development plan, as follows: A local planning authority may in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by directions given by the Minister under this order grant permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan. Accordingly, in relation to any application for planning permission, the effect of those two provisions together is that the local planning authority can give a planning permission contrary to the development plan only if and in so far as it is allowed to do so by the Minister. There is certainly no provision about planning permissions in general, that it may do the opposite of what the development plan provides if it so thinks fit. On the contrary, the development plan is clearly indicated as that which is to guide it except in circumstances which call for a Ministerial direction.

With regard to the certificates, if the Lords Amendment is to be accepted as it stands, the position will be that the local planning authority in considering this question will be able to disregard the development plan to an extent which it could never do when considering the similar question which arises in connection with an application for planning permission. Accordingly, the question—if we may take a concrete instance—of whether where land is indicated as an open space some other development might reasonably have been expected to be permitted if the land had not been compulsorily acquired would answer itself when an application was made for planning permission. The answer would generally be, "You, the applicant, must keep to the development plan unless there are Ministerial directions entitling you to do otherwise."

However, when exactly the same question comes up in connection with the issuing of a certificate under the Bill, a certificate which it is hoped will have the effect of giving more compensation to the person whose land is being compulsorily acquired, then that person is put in a better position than the applicant could possibly be under the 1947 Act. A right is given him which, as I see it, amounts to a complete disregard of the development plan, for in the language of the Lords Amendment the local planning authority is not to treat development of any particular class as development for which planning permission would have been refused by reason only that it would have involved a breach of the provisions of the development plan. There is no difference in it. The authority might just as well have been told, "You can and should disregard the development plan." It comes to exactly the same thing as far as I can see.

I suggest that we are fully entitled to make the criticism that I have already made and that the right way to look at this is to treat the development plan as that which must be followed in the absence of special circumstances. The suggestion in our Amendments is, accordingly, that unless there are special circumstances the development plan should be followed, and if there are special circumstances a certificate may be granted, but in that case the special circumstances should be set out in it in case any question arises on appeal, any question of law or the like.

The only difference between the last two in this group of Amendments is this. The first one was intended to stipulate that the special circumstances must be something which had arisen after the development plan applied to the land in question. On reconsideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I thought that that might be too narrow. Therefore, the second of those two Amendments, which I definitely prefer, refers to special circumstances, but does not stipulate that they must be special circumstances which have arisen since the development plan applied to the land in question.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to ask a question for elucidation. My difficulty is as follows. Suppose the development plan provides that an area is not to be built on. If the local authority, the acquiring authority or the planning authority leaves it at that, presumably the owner of the land is entitled to compensation under the 1954 Act unamended, because it is compensation for refusal of planning permission, which still, I think I am right in saying, would come within the 1954 Act. That would mean that he would be entitled to the limited values of his land, virtually the existing use value plus the claim under 1954 Act.

If that is so, I want know why he should be entitled to greater compensation if the local authority is acquiring the land in order to develop it for public purposes. In other words, if the local authority leaves the land and says, "We are not interested in the land. All we are interested in is that you can do nothing with it under the development plan", the owner will get compensation for refusal of planning permission.

If, on the other hand, the local authority is to develop it for public use, then, as I understand the position under the Lords Amendments, the compensation would be based upon what we, rather erroneously, talk about as market value; in other words, it would be market value in the sense that it would be possible to roam over the whole field of possible uses to which the land could have been put in this extraordinarily hypothetical exercise of producing the certificate, and it would be possible to arrive at a value which might be very much more than would have been the value that the owner would have got if the acquiring authority had not been going to use the land.

I know that the Minister hates the idea of public authorities ever doing anything for the public, but I do not quite understand why he is carrying his hatred so far as to inflict this additional financial fine upon them for having the arrogance and impertinence to want to use land for the public good instead of leaving it to lay waste. I should be grateful it (he Minister would elucidate this point.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I regard the Lords Amendments as being open to the strongest objection. I think that what we have witnessed in the proceedings on the Bill at this stage and earlier is one of the most predatory and selfish exercises that one could have seen for a very long time. The principle has, of course, been accepted that what is described as the open market fair value of land is to be paid upon compulsory acquisition, but the wretched spectacle to which we have been treated since has been the repeated endeavour to ensure that every crumb of compensation shall be picked up, that no "lolly" shall be allowed to get by. The Lords Amendment manifests in noticeable degree what I regard as a wretched characteristic of the treatment of this whole problem at the various stages at which we have been engaged in it.

What was the position before the Lords Amendment attracted our attention? The position was that in a case where on the current development plan land was white and there was no proposed specified development or designation for compulsory purchase, when any owner of an interest sought a certificate for alternative development he was to be entitled to go to the certifying authority and have an adjudication upon the question of what planning permission might reasonably have been expected. As I understand it, for all practical purposes the issue arises only in the case of a green belt, open space or white land. It does not arise in the case of development for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, or in the case of areas of comprehensive development. There are very few other instances of designation or zoning on the development plan where the trouble will arise.

As the matter left Standing Committee and consideration in this House on Report, the authority which had the duty to certify the appropriate alternative development for which permission might reasonably have been expected was given carte blanche to consider all the relevant factors. Of course, in considering what kind of development would have been likely to get permission, it was a relevant factor that the land was shown on the development plan as white.

The effect of that was as follows. The fact that the land was shown as white on the plan did not exclude the possibility that development of the land might be permitted. Nobody ever suggested that that would occur. Although land is marked white on a current development plan, it has always been open to anybody to apply for planning permission in respect of that land and, on failure to get planning permission, to go to the Minister on appeal. It has been open to anybody—and it does not even have to be the owner of the land concerned—to go to the planning authority and ask for permission to develop the land which is marked and zoned on the development plan as an open space or green belt.

We all knew that when the Bill left this House. We all knew that it would be a relevant circumstance that the current development plan determined and arrived at having regard to all the circumstances in the general public interest, had expressed the conclusion that the land was best left as an open space and undeveloped. We knew that it was always open to anybody desiring to develop the land to make an application for permission to develop and, if that application were turned down, to go on to the Minister and appeal.

If the Amendment had not been proposed by the Lords and the Bill had been allowed to take effect as was originally intended, the result would have been that in 99 cases out of 100 the certifying authority would have said that since the land was marked as white on the development plan it was, therefore, reasonable to assume that planning permission would not have been given for any development of any kind, but it would have been open to that authority to have regard to special circumstances. The current development plan might have started to become out of date. There might have been windfalls of other open spaces or other green belt land which would take the place of land originally zoned in the development plan as open land or green belt land. There might have been changes of circumstance. Those are just the kind of special circumstances to which my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have drawn attention.

What the Lords Amendment proposes is to throw the whole thing wide open, because when the owner of the land now seeks to get his certificate of alternative development and the certifying authority says that the land is marked white on the plan and the reasonable conclusion is therefore that the applicant would not get planning permission if he asked for it, the applicant can reply, as the Minister knows, that the fact that the land is white is precisely the fact which the Act of Parliament invites and directs the authority to ignore.

That is where this proposal is entirely wrong. Of course, it may be defended in a plausible fashion. There is nothing easier than to be plausible when one is being predatory, and that is what is happening throughout the Bill in one provision after another. The practical consequence of the Lords Amendment will be that again and again it will be open to the owner of the interest in the land to say to the local authority that if that authority takes the point that because the land is open land there would not have been planning permission, that is the circumstance and the factor which Parliament has instructed the authority to ignore. Albeit that the land is marked as a green belt, it might be admirably suited for residential development, apart from the fact of its zoning on the plan. The applicant will be able to fight and maintain strongly for the full residential value of the land.

Some local authorities will be on their toes and prepared to defend what is the correct position which they can take up, but others will not be so strong, and in every instance there will be the opportunity for the owner of the land to argue and to try to persuade the local authority that the fact that the land is white on the plan is the circumstance which Parliament has instructed the certifying authority to ignore.

I believe that that is entirely wrong, and because the Lords Amendment is open to the gravest objection and because my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment does a great deal to remove what is objectionable, I support his Amendment.

Mr. Willis

My hon. Friends have told the House what our Amendments set out to achieve. There is no doubt that the Amendments give effect to what most Members of the Committee wanted at the time the changes were made in Committee. I do not propose to cover that ground, but I stress that the Lords Amendment will make the position for Scotland even worse.

When in Committee we discussed the certifying procedure, we had long discussions about the fact that applications for certificates could be made by persons other than those holding the dominium utile. I do not want to explain what dominium utile is. The Solicitor-General for Scotland knows what it means. Clause 7 (3) says that applications for certificates may be made by any person entitled to any feu duty or ground annual or other annual or recurring payment or incumbrance out of the land (not being stipend or standard charge in lieu of stipend) … That means that many people are entitled to go to the local authority and apply for a certificate.

The Lords Amendment opens the door to arguments along the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). That seems to place the local authorities in Scotland in an exceedingly difficult position. If he is listening, I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to explain how this will operate in Scotland, what he considers will be the effect in Scotland of the Lords Amendment as it stands and then of the Lords Amendment as amended by this Amendment. Whatever the circumstances in England, I understand that in Scotland these Amendments to the Lords Amendments would be desirable. We ought to hear from the Solicitor-General whether that is so and if it is why we should accept the Lords Amendment unamended.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On going through the various Lords Amendments I have discovered that I might wish to move a manuscript Amendment. Could you tell me the rule in relation to manuscript Amendments when we are considering Lords Amendments?

Mr. Speaker

The normal practice is not to accept a manuscript Amendment of which the House has not had notice.

Mr. H. Brooke

First I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who was raising a much larger issue, but he will recollect that repeatedly in Committee I explained on behalf of the Government that the Government saw a distinction between the case of the man who is refused planning permission to retain the ownership of his land and the case of the man whose land, as here, is compulsorily taken from him. It is not necessary that the basis of compensation should be the same in each case.

The purpose of the Lords Amendment which this Amendment proposes to amend is simply to remove a doubt as to what is to be taken into account in connection with the issue of certificates. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who suggested that this Lords Amendment opened quite new fields, I would refer to paragraph 19 of the White Paper explaining the original Bill. If he looks at that White Paper, the hon. Gentleman will see that this Lords Amendment in no way goes beyond what was stated there as to the intention of the Bill and what we believe to be the full meaning of the Bill. Nevertheless, it has been thought fit by another place to insert the Amendment to remove any possible doubts there might be, because we do not want cases to come into court unnecessarily

Mr. A. J. Irvine

Where on earth was the doubt? Everyone knows that where land was not zoned for residential or industrial development but was left as open land, one could apply for permission to develop it. Where was the doubt?

Mr. Brooke

Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will allow me to complete my speech, because it is not only white land that this applies to. It is common ground that Section 14 of the 1947 Act requires a local planning authority when dealing with an application for planning permission to have regard to the provisions of a development plan, so far as material thereto, and to any other material considerations. It was because of those words in the 1947 Act that it was felt some doubt arose and it might be possible that the local planning authority might feel bound to say in its certificate that no development would be permitted except in accordance with the marking of the plan for the land in question, but that would create a nonsense. Indeed, the first of the Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would create a nonsense, which he seeks to mitigate by the further Amendments. We have not only to consider the case of white land. In the case of white land, the authority has obviously to consider whether any development at all would be appropriate, but we must also address ourselves to the case where on a development plan a piece of land is shown in a built-up area surrounded by residential development, but allocated for a school, an open space, or something like that.

It is no good looking at the development plan for guidance there, because what we are trying to do is to discover for what purpose planning permission might be given for the development of this land if it were not to be acquired by a public authority; and the development plan shows the allocation only on the assumption that the authority is acquiring it. So the development plan does not help at all, and that is why one must not tie the local planning authority to the development plan as the Opposition Amendment would seek to do. It must be fully provided that the planning authority is not precluded in the normal case from issuing a certificate for development which is out of accord with the plan. The Lords Amendment makes clear that the authority is free to exercise a reasonable discretion. If I may illustrate what I mean by a reasonable discretion, when I use those words I mean the kind of discretion it would exercise in submitting a proposal for the alteration of the development plan under Section 6 of the 1947 Act.

I hope the purpose of all of us is the same in this; that is to say, to try to set up machinery which will enable a ruling to be given as to the development that might have been permitted to take place if the land were not being purchased compulsorily.

The Government say that there is a variety of cases where we cannot get an answer to that simply by looking at the development plan and there ought not to be words in the Bill which might even import a presumption that in a case like that a development plan would give the answer and that a local authority would be doing something unusual if it departed from the development plan. If it is an area surrounded by houses zoned in that development plan, the local authority will not be doing anything unusual if it gives a certificate for the land where planning permission might be reasonably given for development of the land for something other than a school. Of course, a certificate is not a planning permission, but an indication of the types of use for which planning permission might be given.

What I put to the House is that this group of Opposition Amendments would tie the local planning authority down too tightly, whereas if we agree to the Lords Amendment unamended we shall be approving the Clause with no element of doubt remaining.

Mr. Mitchison

By leave of the House I should like to say that I have never heard a more illogical defence of what seems to me to be an indefensible proposition. I am not interested in the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper. That was thrown overboard long ago. The Amendments go quite wide of the White Paper in many respects. What I am interested in is the question which we are now considering, namely, what is a local planning authority to consider when granting a certificate of development which might reasonably have been expected on the land if the land had not been compulsorily acquired? That is permitted development. Accordingly. it is development for which a hypothetical person would have had to apply for planning permission. The person applying for planning permission would have seen the local planning authority, and the local planning authority—or the Minister if the application were made to him—would have had to consider the development plan and would have been entitled to consider anything else only if there was a Ministerial direction to that effect. When considering what might reasonably have been expected, that is what must be borne in mind.

It is wholly inconsistent to have one standard for planning permission and another for the circumstances that we are considering in relation to certificates. There must be the same attitude to the development plan. I do not know what the Minister meant by taking one out of four connected Amendments and saying that that would make nonsense. That is often the case with four connected Amendments, but we all know perfectly well what we are doing.

The object of the Amendments is to put a person applying for a certificate in the same position as a person who might apply for hypothetical planning permission to which the whole of the certificate process relates. It is wholly inconsistent to say that there must be a different attitude to one as compared with the other. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman tries to defend this attitude towards development plans.

If we are to disregard development plans, then we shall disregard something which, as we all know, has affected very materially the value of land in the past. Land which is marked and scheduled in the development plan for one purpose may have, and usually has, a different value from similar land scheduled or marked for another purpose. It is on the basis of the development plan that land has changed hands and that a market price has been paid for it that we come to the question of compulsory purchase. If we were to ask an ordinary person the market value of land, the first question which he would ask in relation to planning matters would be, "What does the development plan say about it?" When considering alternative development, surely the right thing to do is first look at the development plan. Only special circumstances can possibly entitle one to go beyond it.

I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, not only because they seem to be wrong, but because they seem to be unrelated to previous transactions which would have proceeded with due regard to the development plan. I am driven to the conclusion that in this respect and in other respects the Bill has been persistently tightened up—always in one direction during its progress through this House and in the Lords. It has been tightened up to give the individual owner of land who is selling to a local authority under compulsory sale a higher price than he would otherwise have obtained.

6.45 p.m.

We are as concerned as anybody to do the right thing in the Bill and to give what the Explanatory Memorandum calls a market value basis for compensation". We had our differences about that on Second Reading, but ever since we have been in Committee that is what we have been trying to do. But it is not a market value, and nothing like it, if, whenever one comes to a doubtful question—I do not believe that this is even a doubtful question—one always comes down on the same side and if when the Bill goes from the Commons to the Lords the local authority is time after time mulcted at the expense of the man whose land is being sold.

One wants to be fair, but I believe that the attitude that appears from the Lords Amendment, and which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, is not fair as between two people, whoever they are, and that a comparison of the position in relation to planning permissions shows that quite clearly. I hope that we shall persist in our Amendment.

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Aston)

The Lords Amendment is thoroughly bad. I hope that we shall vote against it and that we shall support the Amendment moved from this side of the House.

I do not think that the Minister's explanation is at all satisfactory. He-referred to paragraph 19 of the White Paper, I think, and said that the principle embodied in it has already been accepted. However, paragraph 19 deals with a limited case. It reads: For instance, if a site is 'defined' in the plan for some public development (e.g., for a school), this does not, or may not, tell us what sort of private development would have been allowed if the land had not been required for public development". That is what we want to know in order to arrive at the value in the open market.

The Minister dealt with a case where the land has already been designated for public acquisition, but the Amendment goes far beyond that. The Amendment wipes out the development plan entirely. What it says, in substance, is that a local authority can completely ignore the plan, at any rate from the point of view of the landlord's interest, and the planning development in that respect would count for nothing. It is not true that planning development is wiped out entirely because the landlord cannot always rely upon the development plan. Suppose that the planning authority is thinking in terms of a planning restriction which may restrict the purposes for which the land may be used and therefore diminish its value. The local authority cannot rely upon that. It is a question of, "Heads I win, tails you lose" for the landlord. That is the principle embodied in almost every Amendment placed before the House by the Minister.

There is no justification for the Amendment. It proposes a wide extension of the principle. It allows for favouritism between one landowner and another. The planning authority can say what it likes if a landowner applies for compensation.

As I have said, this is a thoroughly bad Amendment. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said that a man buys a piece of land on the basis of its present value as defined in the development plan. Why should a landowner receive compensation in excess of what he has paid for the land? It is simply a free bonus for the landowner which may be justified on political grounds but it is certainly not justified upon any principle of natural justice or on the real value of the land. In addition, it is an imposition upon the ratepayers.

I know that during the municipal elections the Tories shouted about how the poor ratepayer is being mulcted. The Bill, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, states that £8 million a year is being taken out of the pockets of the ratepayers and put into the pockts of the landlords, and every one of these Lords Amendments means a bit more for the landlords. We are entitled to be told how far this £8 million is to be extended, and how much it will cost the ratepayers each year in subsidising these landlords. Perhaps we may hear that from the Minister at some stage in our deliberations.

Mr. Sparks

I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in reply to the case put from this side of the House, but I thought that he was endeavouring to reply to something which was not exactly germane to the point of dipute between us. The Lords Amendment that we are seeking to amend is concerned with land already designated in a development plan. It is not concerned with land that is not so designated, because the Lords Amendment itself says that: … the local planning authority shall not treat development of that class"— that is to say, the class in which the owner is asking for it to be developed: as development for which planning permission would have been refused by reason only that it would have involved development of the land in question … otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan relating thereto. The essential words are: … otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan relating thereto. That means that in considering the grant of a certificate the local authority must not reject it because the use to which it is sought to put the land happens to be a use other than that designated in the development plan. This provision does not become operative, as I understand it, in the case of comprehensive areas in the development plan, or areas primarily scheduled for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, but refers to all other areas in the development plan area.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a piece of land surrounded by houses would not appear in the development plan as designated for any specific use. I cannot conceive of any such case arising in a built-up area. If it were white land, or away from any built-up area, I could understand it, but it is perfectly obvious that if the land is surrounded by a number of houses it must have some designated use in the plan—either residential, industrial or open space.

This Clause becomes operative only when the local authority wants to acquire that land, and the authority can only do so in order to use it for purposes that are permitted by the development plan. It cannot use it for any other purpose because, like anyone else, a local authority must get planning permission, and if it wants to use the land for purposes other than those in the plan, the planning authority will not permit that use. Therefore, in acquiring a piece of land, the local authority must have planning permission to use it for a particular purpose, and the planning permission must, in the main, be based upon the use designated in the development plan.

For instance, the use shown in the plan may be for open space, and this piece of land, surrounded by houses, in a built-up area, may be eminently suitable for the local authority to acquire for use as a play space for the children in the area, or as a little park for those living in the neighbourhood. But the Minister says. "Oh, no. On its being acquired, the owner may make a claim for compensation based upon its industrial use"—and that industrial use would put on that land the highest site value. The open space value would be the lowest. Therefore, what the Minister is doing is to give the owner of the piece of land the highest rate of compensation—that based on an industrial use —whereas in the development plan it is planned for use as open space.

If development plans are to have any value whatever, the uses specified in them should be adhered to—local authorities have to adhere to them—and, in general, compensation should be based upon that designated use. If that principle is once departed from, we are opening the door wide to an element of abuse which will bring development plans into disrepute, because the uses that are designated in a development plan would count for nothing when the local authority wished to acquire the land for the purpose for which the development is stipulated.

The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, did not answer the case put from this side. We want to stick by the use designated in the development plan—varied, if necessary, with the passing of time. One can understand that with the passing of time it may be necessary to change the designated use. Should that prove to be the case we agree that the designated use should be changed, and the claim for compensation should be based upon the change in the circumstances, but as long as the use designated in the development plan is valid then, in the interests of good planning, that is the basis upon which compensation should be put because, in any case, the private owner himself, like the local authority, could not have used the land for any purpose other than that designated in the development plan itself.

Question put, That "not" stand part of the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 160. Noes 99.

Division No. 167.] AYES [6.59 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Emmet Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Linstead, Sir H. N.
Alport, C. J. M. Fell, A. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Finlay, Graeme Longden, Gilbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Fisher, Nigel Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Arbuthnot, John Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &Chiswick)
Armstrong, C. W. Freeth, Denzil Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Atkins, H. E. Gammans, Lady Macdonald, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord George, J. C. (Pollok) McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Barbar, Anthony Godber, J. B. McMaster, Stanley
Barlow, Sir John Goodhart, Philip Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Batsford, Brian Gower, H. R. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Baxter, Sir Beverley Graham, Sir Fergus Maddan, Martin
Beamish, Col. Tufton Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Green, A. Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Gresham Cooke, R. Marshall, Douglas
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Grimond, J. Mathew, R.
Bishop, F. P. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Black, Sir Cyril Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Medlicott, Sir Frank
Body, R. F. Gurden, Harold Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Boyle, Sir Edward Hall, John (Wycombe) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Braine, B. R. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Nairn, D. L. S.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Neave, Airey
Brooman-White, R. C. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Nugent, Richard
Carr, Robert Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Page, R. G.
Channon, H. P. G. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Cole, Norman Hirst, Geoffrey Partridge, E.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) Peel, W. J.
Corfield, F. V. Holland-Martin, C. J. Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) Pitman, I. J.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Pitt, Miss E. M.
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood) Iremonger, T. L. Pott, H. P.
Cunningham, Knox Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Powell, J. Enoch
Currie, G. B. H. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Dance, J. C. G. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Rawlinson, Peter
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Redmayne, M.
Deedes, W. F. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Ridsdale, J. E.
de Ferranti, Basil Kirk, P. M. Robertson, Sir David
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lagden, G. W. Roper, Sir Harold
Doughty C. J. A. Lambton, Viscount Russell, R. S.
Duncan, Sir James Leavey, J. A. Sharples, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Shepherd, William
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Speir, R. M. Vane, W. M. F. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.) Vickers, Miss Joan Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Studholme, Sir Henry Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F. Woollam, John Victor
Summers, Sir Spencer Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Teeling, W. Wall, Patrick
Temple, John M. Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) Mr. Bryan and
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.) Webbe, Sir H. Mr. Chichester-Clark.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Webster, David
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Herbison, Miss M. Popplewell, E.
Bacon, Miss Alice Holman, P. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Benson, Sir George Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Redhead, E. C.
Beswick, Frank Hunter, A. E. Reeves, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Ross, William
Brockway, A. F. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Janner, B. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, James (Rugby) Skeffington, A. M.
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Snow, J. W.
Clunie, J. Kenyon, C. Sorensen, R. W.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Sparks, J. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) King, Dr. H. M. Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lawson, G. M. Steele, T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lewis, Arthur Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Dodds, N. N. Lindgren, G. S. Stonehouse, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Lipton, Marcus Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McAlister, Mrs. Mary Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) MacColl, J. E. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) MacDermot, Niall Tomney, F.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan) McLeavy, Frank Viant, S. P.
Foot, D. M. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Warbey, W. N.
Forman, J. C. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Weitzman, D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mellish, R. J. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Mitchison, G. R. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gibson, C. W. Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Greenwood, Anthony Moyle, A. Willey, Fredcrick
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Oram, A. E. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Owen, W. J. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hamilton, W. W. Palmer, A. M. F. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hannan, W. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Hastings, S. Pargiter, G. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hayman, F. H. Paton, John Mr. Deer and Mr. Simmons.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND

MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.