HC Deb 26 October 1966 vol 734 cc1136-53

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from 'such' to 'character' in line 20 and to insert: 'regulations whether of a national, regional or local'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discuss at the same time Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'directions' and insert 'regulations'.

Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'directions' and insert 'regulations'.

And Amendment No. 25, in line 42, leave out 'directions' and insert 'regulations'.

Mr. Graham Page

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The four Amendments go together. May I explain how it would read in the Bill if it were accepted? I refer hon. Members to Clause 1(3) which, as it stands, says that The Commission—

  1. (a) in the performance of their functions under Part II of this Act shall comply with such directions, whether of a general or a specific character, and
  2. (b) in the performance of their other functions under this Act shall comply with such directions of a general character,
as may be given to them by the appropriate Minister or Ministers.

This Clause has a history. Before I give the history perhaps I might read into Clause 1(3,a) the words which I wish to put there in place of some which are there now. Paragraph (a) would read: '.. in the performance of their functions under Part il of this Act the Commission shall comply with such regulations, whether of a national, regional or local character … as may be given to them by the appropriate Minister or Ministers.

In the first Bill presented by the Government, the Minister could give general directions—not specific directions but just general directions. The Minister argued strongly that this was all that the Minister should do with regard to a public body of this sort—that he should merely give general directions. When the second Bill appeared we had the wording inserted which is in print now—that the Minister can give to the Commission specific directions when they are carrying out their functions under Part II, which is the part which gives the Commission power to deal with land, to acquire either compulsorily or by agreement any property in the country and to manage that property, to dispose of it, to sell it as Crownhold, to give it away as Crownhold to somebody, we know not whom. These are the functions under Part II of the Bill.

If the Minister is given power to give specific directions to the Commission, then he can say to the Commission, "You will compulsorily acquire Mr. Brown's house". I do not mean to refer to anybody in particular. This is purely a fictional character—Mr. Brown. The Minister can direct the Commission in such specific and detailed matters as that.

I do not know what the Minister's idea is. I thought that the idea of the Bill was that the Commission should be an independent undertaking, that it should carry out its functions as a non-political body. But here the Minister is retaining for himself the power to direct it in its dealings if he chooses to do so. I say that he is retaining it for himself. We do not know how long he and his Ministry will remain. We do not know who "the appropriate Minister or Ministers" will be. Again I am not speaking of personalities. As far as one can forecast, the Minister who will be able to give specific direction under the Clause will be the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is the Minister who decides planning decisions and so on. To some extent he will be a judge in his own cause.

I think that it is extremely dangerous that he should be given this power without Parliament knowing what is happening. Parliament will be told about these directions when an annual report is made to Parliament. Under a later Clause the Commission has to state in that Report the directions which it has been given by the Minister. That is all too late. It is a year out of date, perhaps. It is when these specific directions are given that the House should know about them.

These directions—and I hope hon. Members realise it—may bring into operation against a specific piece of land special procedures which the Commission can adopt. It can seize land, houses, offices or factories at almost a moment's notice without any public inquiry if the special procedure is adopted. The whole ownership and occupation of that property can be transferred to the Commission without the owner or the occupier having to sign one single document.

The Commission can be directed by the Minister to make what is called a general vesting declaration, which is merely a declaration, "The Commission owns your house". That is all it does. There is no conveyance of the house at all. It is seized in a very short time. That is what can happen within some specific direction which the Minister can give to the Commission. One must realise what is set in motion by this.

If the Amendment were accepted, any direction of this sort would have to be made by regulation and in a later Clause any regulations made by the Minister have to come before the House subject to the Statutory Instrument procedure of possible annulment. That would be some protection for the citizen against political use of this power—and I cannot see any reason for retaining such power if it is not to be used for political uses.

In Committee, the Minister was most courteous on a similar Amendment in showing that he would like to meet us in some way in order to ensure that specific directions were used for a proper purpose. What he thought would be a proper purpose was, I think, that a specific direction could be used regionally or locally to concentrate some particular type of work in a particular area in order to give priority to certain activities where it was needed.

I would not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman in the use of specific directions for that purpose. I can see perfectly well that, in certain localities, it might be advisable for the Minister to direct the Commission to undertake certain work in a general way. If it was necessary to move employment into a district, if a factory were setting up there and the Commission had not realised the importance of providing for the workers in that factory, it would be right for the Minister to give a direction of some sort and see that the Commission used such powers as were needed or were not being exercised by the local authority.

But this is something quite different from just baldly saying in the Bill, "specific directions". In order to try to meet the ideas which the right hon. Gentleman put forward in Committee, I have taken the words from the White Paper, "National, regional or local". They appear where it is stated in the White Paper that the purposes of the Bill are to bring forward land required for development for national, regional or local development plans. If the specific directions from the Minister could fit into that sort of definition, we should have no objection, although we should want to know about them at once.

There is no reason for giving the Minister power to give these directions under the counter, as it were, without disclosing them to the House. After all, he is responsible to Parliament and why should he wish to hide any directions which he gives to the Commission? Let us have them in the straightforward and frank way of regulations which come before the House and which can be annulled if the House sees fit, and let them be restricted to a general type of direction. If the word "general" is too general, let us say that he must bring them within a locality direction, a regulation relating to a locality and to satisfy the House that when he makes the regulations they are made for some valid purpose.

As the Clause stands, it is most dangerous from the point of view of the individual, the individual owner of property and the individual citizen, who could be picked out for some direction from the Minister. This is the sort of thing which should not appear in a Bill of this kind and it is something which we most strongly oppose.

Mr. Willey

As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a matter which was discussed in the Standing Committee when both sides appreciated the difficulties. The hon. Gentleman has conceded the major difficulty in saying that a general direction might well be too general. For that reason, we imported the notion of a direction of a specific character. Following our discussion in Committee, I considered whether an alternative to "specific" could be provided, but I have not been able to find it. I gave an assurance that one would not use such a power of direction in individual cases.

There are difficulties about the notion which the hon. Gentleman has introduced. He is with me in saying that he would provide for the directions to be of a national, regional or local character, but my advice is that there would be major difficulties of interpretation if the word "local" were used and I am driven back to the use of "specific", and that is why we provide for the general or specific character of the directions.

The other point which the hon. Gentleman made was constitutionally quite wrong. We are concerned with an executive act and to substitute regulations for directions would be constitutionally quite wrong. This is to be—and again this is precedented—a direction, and a direction, as the hon. Gentleman was fair enough to point out, is subject to report and the Minister who makes the direction is responsible to Parliament. But a regulation is an extension of an Act of Parliament and is a legislative act; it is wrong to provide for an executive act to be translated into the form of regulations. It also implies quite the wrong relationship between the Minister and the House and the Minister and the Commission. For these reasons, the difficulty of accepting the Amendment without running into major difficulties of interpretation which would affect the Commission and more especially because regulations would be quite the wrong instrument, I reject the Amendment. What one has to do here is to follow well-accepted precedents. This is a matter for direction, and if we made it subject to regulation we should be breaching the proper constitutional relationship of a Minister to the House.

9.30 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

I heard with some disappointment the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I also heard it with some surprise, since he seeks to found his argument on a constitutional basis, in attempting to mark out a special province for directions in the constitutional doctrine of this country. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman and I came into the House at the same time. He will recall that in those far-off days we used to have debates into the question of directions being a form of sub-subordinate legislation.

The parentage of directions as a feature in our constitutional administration is not of any great antiquity or any very great respectability. I am rather surprised that after a little over 20 years I should hear directions being credited with this ancient and traditional constitutional aura, with which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to invest them. I have what I think is a more traditional and respectable view of our constitutional processes and practices. What we do not do or what we have not been habituated to do, is to give a power of executive direction in regard to specific personal matters. That is what is done by this Clause as it stands.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he chose the word "specific" because he was unable to find an alternative to the word "general". I must indicate to him and the House that the word "specific" in this context, a direction of a specific character, is very specific indeed. Here we are talking in the context of Part II of this Bill, which deals with the compulsory acquisition of land.

It is not appropriate for a commission to receive a specific direction, not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny or control, to effect a compulsory acquisition of the land or property of the individual citizen. In my submission that is not in accordance with the constitutional and democratic fabric of this nation. The right hon. Gentleman then goes on to say that this may seem rather ominous—1 paraphrase his observations—if one reads the words of the Statute au pied de la lettre, but that they are reasonable people in the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, and they would never use these powers in the way that, theoretically, they would be entitled to do.

That argument never sounds very powerful in my ears, the less so in this specific case because the right hon. Gentleman, as we understand it, in the language of the law, is a tenant at will—or is he a tenant at sufferance? Anyway, he is on a very precarious tenure indeed. Even if he were in one of the more established tenures of Departmental office, I would still invite the House to reject this argument. The law has to be interpreted in the courts and the courts interpret the law in accordance with the Statues that Parliament has seen fit to enact. Ministerial utterances, even in the House of Commons have no weight in law. It is a very bad constitutional practice to give powers which should not be given merely on the ipse dixit of a Minister—and Ministers, in the eighteenth century phrase, are transient and embarrassed phantoms, especially the present ones—that he will not make full use of them.

There is a wider point which should properly be made in the general context from a constitutional point of view. I am one of those who believe that this country, and this House in particular, has a considerable rôle to play in the second half of the twentieth century in showing to the emergent territories a pattern of viable democratic constitutional procedure. We do not help ourselves in discharging that important rôle if those to whom we preach this doctrine are able to point to provisions in our Statute law which show that on the specific directive of a Minister, not subject to Parliamentary control, the rights of citizens can be expropriated. They look at the laws which we enact and do not qualify them by the reservations which the Minister has put before us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has done a considerable service both within the context of the Bill and within the broader context of the constitutional life of this nation and the example which we can set in tabling this Amendment. I hops that the Minister, who has shown signs of appreciating this point and of not being entirely happy about it, will, even at this late hour, have further and better thoughts.

Mr. Rossi

The Minister is well aware that he is breaking a fundamental constitutional principle in asking for general and specific powers in this Bill, because this matter has been well debated in two Standing Committees. It was first debated in Standing Committee F in February last when the Minister was in the curious position of having to defend the Bill, which merely related to general principles, against back benchers of his who wished an Amendment to be inserted giving him power to make specific directions as well as general directions.

I should like to call in aid, as I have done once before in Committee, the statements which the Parliamentary Secretary made in Standing Committee F when he was resisting the suggestion that the Minister should have the power to make specific directions. He said: … the general view has been taken, I think, on both sides of the Committee, that once Parliament has decided the general principles and the Minister is thereafter responsible to Parliament for the operation of the concern or whatever it is, if the body is then to be effective and not a mere appendage of a Government Department, it should be allowed considerable individual initiative. He went on to say that the proposal to include specific directions was a very big constitutional change. I do not think it is justified by the experience we have. … it might lead to undesirable interference by the Minister in individual cases which would make the work of the Commission very difficult. These are the Parliamentary Secretary's own words on a constitutional matter of the greatest importance. Yet here he is, with the Minister, trying to drive a coach and horses through that fundamental constitutional principle, and not one valid reason does he give except that, although he is asking for these powers, he does not intend to use them. Why on earth have them, particularly when they are a breach of our constitution?

The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say in Committee: The Minister is responsible to Parliament for the general direction, and the executive body ought to get on with its own duties. It is because we feel that the Amendment would breach that constitutional principle that we resist it. Why insist upon it now if at the time it was objectionable to have the power for a Minister to make a specific direction.

The Parliamentary Secretary went on in that Committee with a number of other arguments about why the Minister should not have power to make specific directions. He said that for only the Commission to have the power to make specific directions makes for the smoothest working and gives the greatest efficiency. Perhaps he does not want to make for the greatest efficiency and the smoothest working of the Land Commission. In that we may well applaud him, because we do not want it either.

We asked earlier what had occasioned this fundamental change of mind which had taken place. Another reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary in February was that it would place on the Minister an impossible burden which hitherto has not been acceptable as constitutional doctrine by either major parties or public opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 17th February, 1966; cc. 37, 44 and 38.] When we came to the second Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary did not think that it was such an intolerable burden for the Minister to make these specific directions in individual cases. And so it went on with one reason after another on that occasion, even appeals to natural justice, about why the Minister should resist being given the power to make specific directions. Today, however, he is asking that this power be given to him without any cogent reason. When we pressed him about this in Standing Committee E and asked him to give use examples of the kind of cases in which he was prepared or thought it necessary to make specific directions—

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley)

I am a constituent of the hon. Member. Just over 10 years ago, Lord South wood died. His estate of 3¼ acres was then valued at £11,000 or £12,000. The hon. Member knows this because he was a member of the Hornsey Borough Council. When the estate was finally sold, the Hornsey Borough Council could not buy the land and it was sold for £110,000, £111,000 or £112,000. Is that natural justice? The Bill seeks to undo that natural injustice.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Intervention, like speeches, must bear relation to the Amendment.

An Hon. Member

Get back to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Rossi

I was saying that the Minister has given no instance of the type of case in which he considered a specific direction necessary. The examples which he gave us were of directions of a regional character, and a regional character alone. He confessed his inability to give any instance of the specific direction in individual cases that he would like to make, whether it was the Southwood estate or something else. I will deal with Southwood Lodge presently to the extent that it is of interest to the House.

Mr. Willey

What I said, on the contrary, was that there was no intention of exercising such specific directions in individual cases.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Rossi

Well, I said on that occasion in Committee, and the Minister agreed with me at that time: The difficulty appears to be one of definition rather than of general intent. We believe that the Minister should only make general directions and the Commission should have its own individuality and be allowed to make its own decisions on matters of detail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th June, 1966; c. 44.] When asked to give an example he gave an example of a regional character. Would it be possible to make a definition of a general character when dealing with a region? This point was emphasised repeatedly, and the Minister, in his reply to me, said: I confess that I have had difficulty in finding the proper words and these are the best I have been able to find so far. Of course, I am willing to reconsider the matter and to see whether it is possible to get other words …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 14th June, 1966; c. 45.] He was conceding at that time that what he had in mind were directions of a regional or local character.

All we are seeking to do by this Amendment now is to find words which he was then unable to find to give expression to his avowed intention in this matter; that and no more. We have supplied him with the words, and we believe that these are words which would work, and if the Minister is really genuine in his contention that he does not want specific powers to act in individual cases, because this would be a constitutional breach, as the Parliamentary Secretary said so powerfully on another occasion, let him accept this Amendment which would limit him to the type of case he is saying he needs these powers for. Let us see the extent to which he is being genuine with this House over this matter.

So far as Southwood House is concerned, I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that that house was sold at a very high price, because development permission was given for that site after the house had been in the hands of a particular family for a large number of years, and it was sold at a price which the local authority could not afford to pay. I was chairman of the housing committee at that time. The local authority wished to acquire that site for a housing association, and we went into this matter very carefully with the Ministry, and we were told that the economic rent which would have to be charged for that site if it was to be developed for a housing association would make it not economically viable for our purposes. But do not forget that that is a district——

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Amendment we are discussing.

Mr. Rossi

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

The Amendment is whether the words should be of a general or a specific character or of a national, regional or local character".

Mr. Rossi

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should not have allowed myself to be sidetracked.

Mr. Padley

On a point of order. If the power which we are now debating had been in existence Hornsey Borough Council would have been able to have served the interests of the general inhabitants of the Borough of Hornsey.

Mr. Rippon

Further to that point of order. Why does not the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs leave our debate and go back to the Foreign Office and work out how much Gibraltar is worth?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that was not a point of order.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

I had not intended to intervene in the debate on this Amendment, and particularly was it not my intention to intervene after having listened with admiration to the speeches in support of it by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), but I have a contribution which I hope may assist the House.

Both sides of the House would possibly agree that this Clause 1 puts wholly unprecedented powers into the hands of the Executive, powers which could be used dangerously with regard to the liberties and rights of the individual citizens. Of course, I accept the protestations of the Minister that he would not dream of using those powers. Then why take them? Nevertheless, I accept it from him, but can that be said of all his successors who will hold the portfolio which he now holds and exercise the powers given by this Clause?

The word "constitutional" has been used by almost all my hon. Friends in reference to the powers which are being taken. In this country, the word "constitional" in one sense means little, because we have no written constitution. Parliament is supreme. What Parliament says goes, and Parliament makes the law. Parliament can do anything by Statute, if it is prepared to go so far, and make any law. All the more does it behove us to be careful of the powers which we give the Executive.

In Clause after Clause, the Bill gives wholly unprecedented powers to the Executive which are not necessary even for the purposes of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I believe that many of those powers are being taken under the pressure of the sort of emotionalism which was exhibited just now by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs who intervened in the terms that he did, citing a case about which I know nothing. But I have no hesitation in saying that if that is the kind of emotion behind——

Mr. Padley


Mr. Grieve

No, I do not give way. Behind the powers which are being taken is the attitude which would punish anyone and everyone and deprive the individual citizens of the country of their rights in a form and in terms of a kind which have never been used against our citizens before.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I cannot understand why the Government do not accept the Amendment, and I should like to explain why.

In this country, we have always tried to follow the principle that the law must be certain as far as possible. As I understand it, that means that the Executive would not wish the public to be unaware of the rules governing any particular circumstance. I cannot envisage that the Ministry for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible would give directions of which the public were unaware. If they are to be aware of the directions, there is no reason why they should not be in the form of regulations. If they are in the form of regulations, they are known to the public, and they are of a national, regional or local character. Therefore, everything which the right hon. Gentleman apparently wishes to achieve, including the reserve power which he wishes to retain and which he does not intend to use but wants to keep just in case, would be achieved if he accepted the Amendment. I cannot understand why he does not accept it.

Mr. John Wells

I wish to ask the Minister one small specific point. I cannot remember, and I should be grateful if he could refresh my memory, whether the Ombudsman, or whatever he is to be called, would have power to inquire into cases, particularly if directions of a specific character are maintained.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson (Walthamstow, East)

I have tried to follow the argument of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. As I understand it, they are saying that, by this Amendment, if the Minister wishes to give a direction to the Land Commission that it shall acquire No. 28 Oxford Street, it should be done in the form of a regulation which is subject to annulment by a Resolution of the House. I find it a little incongruous that the Land Commission itself could make a compulsory purchase order to acquire No. 28 Oxford Street and the Minister would be able to confirm that direction without any reference to Parliament. I should like it explained to me what difference there is. It is suggested that the Commission may do an act which the Minister cannot do save with the permission of Parliament. I also find it difficult to understand why right hon. and hon. Members opposite quarrel with the description of a general or specific character. Presumably they would not have minded had the Minister included in the Bill simply the words, "shall comply with such directions", and not attempted to define them in any way. I find it difficult to accept the argument that this is attacking some constitutional principle.

The New Towns Act of 1966, although passed by a Labour Administration, was the result of a New Towns Commission set up during the war by a Coalition Government. Section 2(3) of that Act says: Without prejudice to any provision of this Act requiring the consent of the Minister to be obtained for anything to be done by a

development corporation, the Minister may give directions to any such corporation for restricting the exercise by them of any of their powers under this Act, or for requiring them to exercise those powers in any manner specified in the directions …"

That is a statutory provision enabling the Minister to give directions, whether of a general or specific character, and I say again——

Sir D. Walker-Smith

If my recollection serves me right, I do not think that we had the pleasure of having the hon. Gentleman here in 1946. He must not suppose that the New Towns Bill as it was, the New Towns Act of 1946 as it now is, went through this House without searching and constructive criticism from these benches. That is one of the Measures which I had in mind when I reminded the right hon. Gentleman that this matter of giving ministerial directions had been the subject of animated debate in those years.

Mr. Robinson

I had not the good fortune to be a Member at that time. It was a belated honour which I conferred on the House in arriving in 1966. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is assuring me that he attacked this provision, I accept what he says, but the fact remains that it has been on the Statute Book since 1946, even during 13 years of Conservative Administration without being amended.

I have had experience of serving with a new town corporation, and I had never heard of a case where hardship has been caused by the ability of the Minister to give directions. I stress again that that Act gives the Minister power to give directions on any matter in respect of which a corporation may exercise its powers and restrict them. It is not limited to a general character. These directions can be specific, as well as general, and I fail to see the alleged constitutional point which is put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 129.

Division No. 183.] AYES [9.58 p.m.
Abse, Leo Anderson, Donald Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Albu, Austen Armstrong, Ernest Baxter, William
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Alldritt, Walter Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Bence, Cyril
Allen, Scholefield Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Binns, John Garrett, W. E. O'Malley, Brian
Bishop, E. S. Garrow, Alex Orbach, Maurice
Blackburn, F. Gourlay, Harry Orme, Stanley
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Oswald, Thomas
Boardman, H. Gregory, Arnold Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Booth, Albert Grey, Charles (Durham) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Boyden, James Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Padley, Walter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Palmer, Arthur
Bradley, Tom Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Brooks, Edwin Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Park, Trevor
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hannan, William Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Buchan, Norman Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Pentland, Norman
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Haseldine, Norman Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hazed, Bert Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Cant, R. B. Henig, Stanley Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Carmichael, Neil Hooley, Frank Price, William (Rugby)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Horner, John Probert, Arthur
Coe, Denis Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Randall, Harry
Coleman, Donald Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Rankin, John
Concannon, J. D. Howie, W. Rhodes, Geoffrey
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hoy, James Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Crawshaw, Richard Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Croslana, Rt. Hn. Anthony Hughes, Roy (Newport) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hunter, Adam Rose, Paul
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hynd, John Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dalyell, Tarn Janner, Sir Barnett Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Sheldon, Robert
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Kelley, Richard Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Delargy, Hugh Kenyon, Clifford Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dell, Edmund Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dempsey, James Lawson, George Skeffington, Arthur
Dewar, Donald Leadbitter, Ted Small, William
Dickens, James Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Snow, Jullan
Dobson, Ray Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Doig, Peter Lomas, Kenneth Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunn, James A. Loughiin, Charles Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Dunnett, Jack Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Swingler, Stephen
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b's) McCann, John Thornton, Ernest
Eadie, Alex Macdonald, A. H. Tinn, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Tomney, Frank
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackintosh, John P. Varley, Eric G.
Ellis, John McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
English, Michael MacPherson, Malcolm Watkins, David (Consett)
Ennals, David Manuel, Archie Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Ensor, David Mapp, Charles Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Marquand, David Wnltaker, Ben
Faulds, Andrew Maxwell, Robert Whitlock, William
Fernyhough, E. Mendelson, J. J. Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Finch, Harold Minan, Bruce Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast w.) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winterbottom, R. E.
Floud, Benard Morris, John (Aberavon) Woof, Robert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Moyle, Roland Zilliacus, K.
Ford, Ben Neal, Harold
Forrester, John Newens, Stan TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fowler, Gerry Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Galpern, Sir Myer Oakes, Gordon Mr. Neil McBride.
Gardner, Tony Ogden, Eric
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Campbell, Gordon Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Carlisle, Mark Fortescue, Tim
Astor, John Chichester-Clark, R. Foster, Sir John
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Clark, Henry Gibson-Watt, David
Awdry, Daniel Clegg, Walter Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Baker, W. H. K. Cooke, Robert Glover, Sir Douglas
Batsford, Brian Costain, A. P. Gower, Raymond
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Crouch, David Grant, Anthony
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Dance, James Grant-Ferris, R.
Black, Sir Cyril Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Grieve, Percy
Bossom, Sir Clive Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Gurden, Harold
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn, John Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hall, John (Wycombe)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Eden, Sir John Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter Errington, Sir Eric Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Eyre, Reginald Harvie Anderson, Miss
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Farr, John Hastings, Stephen
Burden, F. A. Fisher, Nigel Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Heseltine, Michael Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Sinclair, Sir George
Hiley, Joseph Monro, Hector Smith, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Holland, Philip Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Summers, Sir Spencer
Hooson, Emlyn Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Talbot, John E.
Hordern, Peter Murton, Oscar Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Nabarro, Sir Gerald Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Neave, Airey Thorpe, Jeremy
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Tilney, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Onslow, Cranley Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian van Straubenzee, W. R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Kimball, Marcus Page, Graham (Crosby) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Kirk, Peter Pardoe, John Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Knight, Mrs. Jill Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Webster, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Percival, Ian Wells, John (Maidstone)
Loveys, W, H. Pink, R. Bonner Whitelaw, William
MacArthur, Ian Pounder, Rafton Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Pym, Francis Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Ramsden, Rt. H. James Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
McMaster, Stanley Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Worsley, Marcus
Maginnis, John E. Ridsdale, Julian Wylie, N. R.
Marten, Neil Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Younger, Hn. George
Maude, Angus Roots, William
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Russell, Sir Ronald Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Mr. Jasper More.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Land Commission Bill may be entered upon and proceded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Willey.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.