§ Mr. N. MacphersonI beg to move, in page 20, line 41, to leave out from "land" to the end of line 43 and to insert:
that amount shall be increased by an amount equal to the compensation, if any, which would he payable under this section in respect of that acquisition or sale if subsection (6) of this section were disregarded.1007 As I mentioned earlier, this is a very similar point. With your permission, Mr. Royle, it would be convenient if we might at the same time consider the next Amendment, in page 21, line 1, leave out from "paragraph" to end of line 4 and insert:that amount shall be increased by an amount equal to the compensation, if any, which would have been payable under this section in respect of that acquisition or sale if—The two Amendments ensure that the full additional compensation payable to the feuar enters into the calculation of the superior's consideration, not—as the Clause is at present drafted—with compensation diminished by set-off. The reasons in this case are exactly the same as those to which I referred in the previous case, with the addition that what we are here dealing with is —very largely, at any rate—compensation for disturbance and severance which are already excluded by Section 62 of the 1954 Act.
- (i) those circumstances had existed, and
- (ii) subsection (6) of this section were disregarded."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 1, leave out from "paragraph" to end of line 4 and insert:
that amount shall be increased by an amount equal to the compensation, if any, which would have been payable under this section in respect of that acquisition or sale if—
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. MitchisonThe Clause raises an important question of principle, indeed more than one question of principle. The effect of it is that if during the five years after a planning decision there is a new planning permission in respect of land which has already been acquired, the man who was compensated at the time of acquisition becomes entitled to receive further compensation. It is an entirely one-sided Clause. Amendments to make it work both ways—in favour of as well as against the acquiring authority—were rejected in Committee. The Clause as it stands is in fundamental breach of a number of old-established principles of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition, including the principles which are being reapplied by this very Bill.
1008 The first point is that at the time of the original compulsory acquisition a notice to treat was served and compensation was assessed on the basis of conditions then prevailing pursuant to that notice to treat. For the time being the recipient of compensation could have regarded, and but for this Clause would have regarded, the whole matter as completed. Instead of that there is power to revert to the amount at a later date and to reassess compensation, not on the basis of what prevailed at the time of the original notice to treat, but at some later period.
It has always been an absolutely fundamental principle of compensation in these cases that the rights of parties should be taken to crystallise and be assessed as at the date of a notice to treat, just as in general legal proceedings they are taken to crystallise and are decided as at the date of the issue of the writ.
That principle is completely disregarded by the Clause. What happens now is that in spite of an assessment at the time a further compensation, brought on by extraneous matters occurring after the date of the notice to treat, becomes payable at a later stage and for a one-sided purpose. That is the first principle which is broken.
Another principle is broken. The first rule for assessment in the 1919 Act says:
No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.At the time that referred to a particular 10 per cent. which was usually allowed in accordance with practice at that time on account of a compulsory acquisition. The principle that was intended and enacted by that rule was that compulsory acquisition should be treated, for the purpose of assessing compensation, in the same way as sales between private individuals. That is the avowed purpose of the Bill, that compensation should be assessed at the open market value, and that means the open market value at the time of the notice to treat.If the parties to this transaction were a willing seller and a willing buyer, and neither of them had compulsory powers or anything of the sort, there is no doubt that they would settle their terms as at the time the land was bargained for and finally handed over. As between private parties no question could possibly arise of an increased value because of a change in 1009 use afterwards, or, for that matter, due to a change of planning permission.
If two private individuals make a bargain and it afterwards turns out to be more profitable to one than to the other, or if one of them thinks he has been hard done by, both in law and in common sense that is no ground for reopening the bargain. That is what is now proposed, and that it should be done unilaterally solely for the benefit of the man who sold the property.
What will follow from this? The result will be that during those five years the man in question, having received all the compensation he expected to get, assessed at the open market value at the time, may have gone to Australia, or died, or become bankrupt, or something else. Accordingly, the next Clause of the Bill provides supplementary provision for the purpose of facilitating the making of claims for compensation which we are now discussing. A whole body of new and quite ingenious machinery has to be introduced for the express purpose of carrying out the Tory philosophy of reopening a bargain in favour of a landlord as against the local authority, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are purporting in the Bill to get compensation at open market value.
8.45 p.m.
It is utterly monstrous that a Government should pretend to be fair as between one side and the other and should then introduce a provision of this sort which goes wildly and impossibly beyond anything which could possibly rule in any private bargain and which makes a man receive not only open market value, not only what is fair at the time, but something which is added to it afterwards for a reason with which he has nothing to do.
What is the Tory philosophy, the Tory doctrine, which defends a provision of that sort, which defends it in the sense of disregarding an agreement made at the time—because that is what it comes to—leaving the matter open, and open in only one sense, for five years, introducing special machinery for the purpose, and all that for no public purpose whatever? If a man is looking for fair compensation and is promised fair compensation at the time of the notice to treat, why should the 1010 Clause, and this Clause only, give him, and only him and not the acquiring authority, something in addition to that?
Is this the cat coming out of the bag at last? Is it true that the Tories, however hard they try, cannot be fair to any public authority when a landlord is involved on the other side? Is it true that they are prepared to introduce rules to which I have referred and which go on to say that the value of the land shall be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer might be expected to have realised, and then to bring in a Clause which gives this one-sided and uncoven-anted benefit in addition to what ought to have been provided in common fairness at the time? It is a monstrous and exceptional provision.
It was intended that the amount should be what the land would have raised if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. With a willing buyer and a willing seller, I cannot think that either side would agree to postpone a settlement of the matter for five years and leave it to some agency which might or might not be the agency of one or the other of them. This is an unprecedented and monstrous proposition.
In Committee we sought to make it more reasonable. We were turned down not only on the point of mutuality, but on a minor point. We said, "If you must do this, let the period be a month or three months or six months." That would give time to prevent a local authority buying for one purpose and deliberately changing its mind. We put forward that sort of period as a bait to see what hon. Members opposite would make of it. They simply said that we were an illogical Opposition and had not gone the whole hog.
This time we are going the whole hog, and that is the right thing to do in this connection. If we start to allow people to change their minds and then make them liable for having done so, we must do it on one supposition only, that we are dealing with people who are dishonest. We all know cases under rent control legislation where landlords have obtained possession of a house for their own use and, surprisingly shortly afterwards, have changed their minds and sold the house and gone elsewhere. Nobody has yet succeeded in disturbing a decision of that 1011 kind, and we have had to recognise that there are cases where an ostensible change of mind may be used to conceal something a little worse, namely, fraudulent dishonesty.
But are the Government so tired and intolerant of local authorities that they are prepared to justify the Clause by saying that local authorities may dishonestly acquire for one purpose and then purport to change their minds? There are some rather ambiguous words in the White Paper, to which I need not refer, but if that is what they think the sooner they abandon the seat of Government and any claim to control the local authorities the better it will be, on all counts. It is monstrous to put up that argument as a justification for the Clause.
What other justification can there be? To assess compensation once at the time of the notice to treat and then to reassess it at any time within five years afterwards is wrong. It is wrong to purport to give a man a fair deal at the time and then to add something to him, and to him only, afterwards. By so doing we are applying, to acquiring authorities and to compulsory purchases, principles—or rather a lack of principles—which could never be found as between buyer and seller in the open market, the purpose of which it is to approximate in the Bill.
There can be no defence or justification for this. If the Government really mean any of the things they have said about the Bill; if they intend to promote fairness and to apply the law as it used to be, I appeal to them to drop the Clause and the following one here and now and to give up this attempt to penalise public authorities solely for the benefit of the landlords of England and Scotland.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said. The Clause raises a fundamental principle to which the strongest possible objection is taken by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. As we said when discussing Clause 14, as it then was, in Committee, the proposition makes a mockery of the Government's claim to introduce a formula for paying market value for land which is compulsorily acquired. Already the formula is rather artificial, but the Clause makes it so artificial that it has no relevance to the ordinary processes by 1012 which we define what is meant by market value.
The Minister has claimed that because the Bill has not received much criticism from professional bodies they commend it. I would point out that that is not the case of local authorities, who are very unhappy about this Clause. Some of them strongly oppose it. That is certainly the case with the London County Council, which has publicly stated that it is in no way opposed to a return to the concept of market value for the purchase price of land compulsorily acquired, but is strongly opposed to this provision that if, within the period of five years, another and more valuable use is found for the land so acquired, the authority shall be forced to pay full compensation.
We tried to discover, in the course of the discussions upstairs, why this provision was necessary. Speaking for myself and, I am sure, my hon. and right hon. Friends, I say that there is a considerable case to be made out for returning to market value for compulsory acquisition, certainly for the small owner, who, having given up his land, has to buy other land at market price on Which to live or to carry on his business, farm or whatever it may be. That is a conception which we support, but we certainly cannot see why this formula of "market value plus" should be introduced into the Bill.
I regret to say that nothing which was advanced by the Government upstairs has convinced us of this need. The only reason appears to be a very sympathetic attitude to large landowners generally. It was an astonishing feature of our arguments in Committee that when we said "Very well, suppose we accept this proposition that if, within five years, the acquiring authority does use the land for a more valuable purpose, extra compensation is then payable, will the Government then agree that if the local authority uses that land for a less valuable purpose within five years, the landowner should return some of the value which he has received?," we were told that this was not an acceptable proposition, and that it would not work at all.
The Minister, in words Which show how very unbalanced is the view of the Government, said that the landowner would not be in a position to give back anything, because when the authority acquired the land it acquired it on the 1013 most valuable basis possible, having regard to the planning permissions given. This is really a case of the landowner winning, whatever side the coin shows. He certainly wins in that if the local authority uses the land for a less valuable purpose within five years he will have already been paid on the maximum basis, arid, on the other hand, if additional value is put an that land by same other use he is entitled to extra compensation.
It is extremely nice for the landowner, but I suggest that two things follow from that. The first is that it is no longer market value, but an entirely artificial formula designed in the interests of the great landowners. It means also that the local authority very often would be placed in the position of having to pay extra compensation for which there is no moral or practical justification at all. To term this market value is an abuse of language.
What market value means is that, having taken into account various considerations at the time of the sale, a fair price is arrived at between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Here the so-called market value being arrived at is a market value whereby one party, five years afterwards, can go back and say "I did not know that you were going to use this land for such a valuable purpose; I want more cash, and I am going to have it." Anybody who did that in the course of an ordinary commercial transaction would be told "It is absolutely monstrous; you freely entered into the bargain, and that is the price arrived at. Commercial law says that parties are at arm's length in making a contract, and once you make the contract that is your business."
Apparently, when the local authority, in order to undertake its statutory obligations, purchases land, and then, because of social requirements, or in order to carry out the duties laid upon it by this House or the wishes of its own citizens, uses it for another purpose, the former landowner, although he has already had full market value at the time his land was acquired, can claim this extra compensation. That is a monstrous and class conscious piece of legislation that ought to be decried from the housetops. It is impossible to see how this can be justified as being fair to the landowner and the public and to the public and local authorities.
1014 9.0 p.m.
I sum up my objections, which I know are shared by a number of local authorities—certainly by the London County Council—under five heads. First, in its present form the Clause abandons the principle which has hitherto been regarded as quite fundamental, that compensation must be assessed as on the date of the notice to treat. That should be the final figure and, if we are not to make a complete mockery of this formula, we should not attach to it some future contingent right particularly when such a right cannot be used in reverse in the interest of local authorities. There might be something to be said for this process if it worked both ways, but, as the Minister has said, it cannot, because in the normal way the landowner would have got the maximum possible from the local authority in any event.
Secondly, this contingent liability will mitigate against the buying of land by local authorities in anticipation of their future requirements, which is something the Minister has advised them to do and which is recommended in the White Paper. Certainly the smaller local authorities will think twice about the purchase of land if, in addition to what they contracted to pay at the time of the notice to treat, they may face additional payments afterwards in connection with the carrying out of their statutory duties. Incidentally, we are back once more to the position forecast by the Uthwatt Report, to which reference was made earlier, that one of the difficulties to effective planning was that local authorities—particularly in the days when the Uthwatt Committee reported—must always bear in mind the difficulties of future extra compensation. That was particularly true before the coming into force of the procedures under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. It is certainly the view of the London County Council experts, and of others, that this Clause will cramp the future buying of land and that thereby proper forward looking planning will to that degree he influenced.
I wish, thirdly, to emphasise a point which I have already made, that the benefit of this Clause is always in the interest of the landowner. As we know from what the Minister has already said, that means the large landowners— 1015 because resident occupiers get the maximum market value in most cases—but never the public or the local authorities. A Clause so construed is monstrous and unfair and I hope that everyone will realise that it is repugnant to those who wish to see fair play and justice.
Fourthly, it departs from the principle, adhered to in other parts of the Bill, that compensation is assessed on the value of the market at the time when the land is acquired. That principle is abandoned, apparently for no good reason except to benefit the landlords.
Lastly, there seems to be no justification whatever for applying the principles of the Clause in favour of an owner whose land is acquired compulsorily, or where compulsory powers are available, if an owner who in similar circumstances was selling without compulsory powers being used would not require or be in a legal position to take compensation. Why should this apply only in the case of a public authority using compulsory powers granted by the House of Commons? Because for all these reasons this Clause is grossly unfair between the landowner and the ratepayer—who ought sometimes to be considered by this Committee in the matter of the acquisition of land—I hope that the Committee will divide against it.
§ Mr. N. MacphersonThe arguments which have been raised by hon. Members opposite seem to be these. That the principle on which we should ask should be, as was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that compensation should be given at open market value. Secondly, to use the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), there should be a fair deal at the time.
The main point is surely this: Under the provision of the Bill, in order to decide what is a fair deal at the time, a fair deal, that is, to both sides, certain provisions lay down how we are to arrive at the assumptions that are to be made as to planning permission as well as to recognition of the planning permissions that exist. One of the outstanding features is that planning permission is considered to be available for the purpose for which the local authority wishes to acquire the land.
1016 It must be fair to the purchaser that the use to which that land is to be put should be one of the things to be taken into account. There may be a change of view as to what that use should be, but if the change takes place within a reasonable time after the compulsory acquisition it is only reasonable that the change should be considered as if that were the planning permission which had been available at the time of acquisition. That is exactly what the Clause does.
§ Mr. MitchisonWill the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between what he is now saying and the case of a private purchaser who buys from a private seller for one purpose and thereafter uses what he has bought for another and more profitable purpose? Does the seller get any extra price for having done that?
§ Mr. MacphersonThe hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that in one case the seller is willing. He is prepared, and may be anxious, to sell, and may agree to sell because the price is sufficiently attractive. In the other case it is compulsory acquisition, in which the owner from whom the land is being acquired has no option but to sell. [Interruption.] I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. In accordance with the provisions of the Bill, it is only right that all the planning permissions that are available and the uses to which the land could be put if it were not being compulsorily acquired should be taken into account. That is what is done in this case.
§ Mr. MitchisonSince the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows what I am going to say, perhaps I may be allowed to say it for other people who know less. The first point is in direct contradiction to the first of the rules in the 1919 Act which I read out. The second comment is that I understood that the purposes of the earlier Clauses were to make it crystal clear that the seller was to got a fair, open-market price. That is what is said in the White Paper. If he gets it once when the land is bought, why should he get an addition afterwards?
§ Mr. MacphersonThe hon. and learned Gentleman confirms what I thought. I thought he was going to make that point. It is indeed the case 1017 that no allowance is made because acquisition is compulsory, but in calculating the value because acquisition is compulsory we have to calculate in a certain way. It is only right that we should take into account uses to which the land is to be put. That enters into the calculation of what the value should be. It is true that some authorities buy land—
§ Mr. MitchisonI hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am abusing the right of interruption, but we are in Committee. He is now contradicting the second rule, which says that it is the amount which the land sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise; a willing seller.
§ Mr. MacphersonThe point surely is that land is being acquired with certain planning permissions and for certain purposes. Those purposes are taken into account in the calculation of the price in exactly the same way as they would if the land were being sold between a willing buyer and a willing seller. What is available is the planning permissions at the time and any possible planning permissions which would be available.
The difference in this case is that the acquiring authority has compulsory powers to acquire for a specific use. Very often if it is a compulsory acquisition that has to be approved by the Minister for that specific use, and it is that use which enters into the calculation of what the purchase price should be. If it turns out that the use is different, simply because there is no option but to sell, surely it is right that any additional and more valuable use should be taken into account if that is the use to which the acquiring authority is to put the property.
§ Mr. MacCollThe point made by the hon. Gentleman would be very plausible if he accepted the corollary, which is that if that use changed against the vendor there ought to be repayment. The basis of the calculation for compensation is the planning permission obtained for the use to which the authority is to put the land. Subsequently, it is discovered that the authority is not to put the land to that use. Had that been known when the transaction took place, the compensation would have been less. Therefore, the logical development of the argument of the hon. Gentleman would be that which we raised in Committee upstairs, that there ought to 1018 be a review of the contract in every case, whether it went for or against the vendor.
§ Mr. MacphersonThat would be so but for this fact. If it were the case that the calculation depended solely on the use to which the land was to be put by the public authority, then of course what the hon. Member said would be quite right, but that is not so in accordance with this Bill, nor should it be so. It is open to either party to obtain a certificate us to what the use would be but for the acquisition. Therefore, there is no reason whatever for the local authority to reduce the amount by the mere fact that if ever there were a purpose for putting the land to a particular use for which it was intended at the time of acquisition clearly a certificate would be available at that time.
It seems on all counts that it is unquestionably reasonable, if we are to be fair to both sides, that any change of intention as to the use which the acquiring authority is to make of the land if it gives a higher and more valuable use that should be added into the purchase price if that change takes place within five years. That is what the Clause does.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonWill the hon. Gentleman not condescend to answer the point I put about the difficulties which will face local authorities in future buying? I referred to this point which was one of the important considerations of the Uthwatt Committee. In paragraph 25 of its Report, that Committee said:
Unquestionably the greatest obstacle to really effective planning has been the fear on the part of planning authorities of incurring indefinite liabilities.That is precisely what the Clause will do with the extra compensation which will become payable in five years. I think the Committee is entitled to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman on that.
§ Mr. MacphersonThere are two forms of indefinite liability which can be acquired. One is an indefinite liability to buy land and hold it as against an unknown and unspecified future use. A local authority can do that where it has not compulsory powers, but where there are compulsory powers that is a very different matter. It obtains the powers for a specific purpose and, if the purpose changes, it should pay a higher price to cover that purpose.
§ Mr. MitchisonThe hon. Gentleman has shown to his own satisfaction but to the satisfaction of no one on this side of the Committee that this very black cat is really clear white.
| Division No. 70.] | AYES | [9.15 p.m |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Cower, H. R. | Morrison, John (Salisbury) |
| Altken, W. T. | Graham, Sir Fergus | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) | Nairn, D. L. S. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Green, A. | Nichols, Harmar |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Grimondi J. | Nicolson, N. (B'n' 'th, E. & Chr'oh) |
| Ashton, H. | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) | Noble, Michael (Argyll) |
| Baldwin, Sir Archer | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Balnicl, Lord | Gurden, Harold | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Osborne, C, |
| Barter, John | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Page, R. G. |
| Batsford, Brian | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Hay, John | Partride, E. |
| Beamish, Col. Tufton | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Peel, W. J. |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald | Hicks-Beach, Mal. W. W. | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Hill, John (S. Norfolk) | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| Blggs-Davison, J. A. | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Holt, A. F. | Pott, H. P. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Hornby, R. P. | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Body, R. F. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M.P. | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) |
| Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) | Horobin, Sir Ian | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Brooke, Rt, Hon. Henry | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) | |
| Brooman-White, R. C. | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Redmayne, M. |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Iremonger, T. L. | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Burden, F. F. A. | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Ridsdale, J. E. |
| Carr, Robert | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwioh) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Shepherd, William |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Kershaw, J. A. | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Cole, Norman | Kimball, M. | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.) |
| Cooke, Robert | Langford-Holt, J. A. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Leavey, J. A. | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Cordeaux, Lt-col. J. K. | Legge-Bourke, Mal. E. A. H. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) |
| Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) | Temple, John M. |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Linstead, Sir H. N. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Dance, J. C. G. | Lloyd, Mal. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Loveys, Walter H. | Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.) |
| D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Deedes, w. F. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Digby, Simon Wingfleld | Macdonald, Sir Peter | Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Mackeson, Brig Sir Harry | Wade, D. W. |
| Doughty, C. J. A. | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Maddan, Martin | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| Elliot, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) | Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) | Wall, Patrick |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) |
| Fell, A. | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Webster, David |
| Finlay, Graeme | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Whitelaw, W. S. I. |
| Fisher, Nigel | Marshall, Douglas | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Freeth, Denzil | Mathew, R. | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Gammans, Lady | Mawby, R. L. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Garner-Evans, E. H. | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. | Yates, William (The Wrekln) |
| Gibson-Watt, D. | Medlicott, Sir Frank | |
| Gough, C. F. H. | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hughes-Young |
| NOES | ||
| Alnsley, J. W. | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Dodds, N. N. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Carmichael, J. | Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Edelman, M. |
| Benson, Sir George | Champion, A. J. | Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) |
| Beswick, Frank | Chetwynd, G. R. | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) |
| Blackburn, F, | Cliffe, Michael | Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Coillck, P. H. (Birkenhead) | Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty) |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) | Cronin, J. D. | Foot, D. M. |
| Boyd, T. C. | Cullen, Mrs. A. | Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) |
| Brockway, A. F, | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Gibson, C. W. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Darling, George (Hillsborough) | Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Deer, G. | Grey, C. F. |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Diamond, John | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
§ Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 171,
1021| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) | MacColl, J. E. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Hale, Leslie | McInnes, J. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Hamilton, W. W. | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Ross, William |
| Hannan, W. | McLeavy, Frank | Short, E. W. |
| Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Mahon, Simon | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Hastings, S. | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) |
| Hayman, F. H. | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Healey, Denis | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Mason, Roy | Sparks, J. A. |
| Hewitson, Capt. M. | Mitchison, G. R. | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Holman, P. | Moody, A. S. | Stonehouse, John |
| Holmes, Horace | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on Trent, C.) |
| Houghton, Douglas | Mort, D. L. | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Hoy, J. H. | Moyle, A. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Hunter, A. E. | Mulley, F. W. | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Neal, Mr. Harold | Taylor, John (West Lothian) |
| Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Oliver, G. H. | Thornton, E. |
| Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Oram, A. E. | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Janner, B. | Oswald, T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Jones, David (The Hartlepools) | Padley, W. E. | Weitzman, D. |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Pargiter, G. A. | Wheeldon, W. E. |
| Kenyon, C. | Parker, J. | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) |
| Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Paton, John | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Lawson, G. M. | Pentland, N. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Popplewell, E. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Prentice, R. E. | Williams, W. T. (Barons Court) |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Lindgren, C. S. | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Logan, D. G. | Probert, A. R. | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | |
| McAlister, Mrs. Mary | Randall, H. E. | |
| McCann, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: | |
| Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons. |
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.