§
Amendment proposed: In page 85, line 26, leave out from 'grant' to 'conveyance' in line 28 and insert:
'of a tenancy, the renewal, extension or other variation of a tenancy, and any other'.—[Mr. Willey.]
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. AllasonI do not think we discussed this Amendment when we discussed new Clause 6. It demonstrates the unsatisfactory nature of the Government's refusal to discuss linking Amendments. The Amendment permits new Clause 6 to make sense, which it did not do when we approved it. New Clause 6 speaks of dispositions varying terms and conditions of tenancy. Here we legislate that a 1417 variation of tenancy shall be a disposition. What a way to run a railroad!
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. FarrI beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 85, line 31, at the end to insert:
'major minerals' means all minerals other than sand, gravel and clayWould it be convenient if with this Amendment we discuss the closely related Amendment No. 96, in page 71, line 32, at the end insert:'except that Case A and Case B disposals of major mineral only shall not be regarded as chargeable acts or events'.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the House so wishes.
§ Mr. FarrThe purpose of the Amendments is to exempt from Case A and Case B levy disposals of all minerals other than sand, gravel and clay. About the only purpose of the Bill with which some of us on this side find a measure of agreement is the intent to ensure that a proportion of any betterment which accrues is returned to the nation. Where land is made more valuable by nearby development, there is something to be said for this aim. The same can be said of sand, gravel and clay deposits, because as houses creep nearer and development gets closer and closer, so to some extent do these three deposits become more desirable and more valuable.
The same does not apply to major minerals. Their value is not increased by the proximity of any development which may be envisaged or which may be taking place. Those of us on this side of the House who have studied this point consider it very unfair that Case A and Case B disposals of minerals should attract levy in this instance which often could be payable years before any royalties are received.
If the Amendment is not accepted, mineral owners could in some cases find themselves in the invidious position of finding it more profitable not to have their minerals operated. The margin upon which some mineral owners are operating at the moment is very slight. For instance, a mineral owner in Northamptonshire is now selling ironstone at 2½d. per ton only, of which l½d. goes straightaway into a restoration fund. The balance is taxed at Income Tax rates. If, in addition, a levy is to be payable at some 1418 stage in this procedure, it will be a very great burden indeed upon mineral owners and will make them even more inclined than they are at present to leave their minerals in the ground. I move the Amendment to draw the attention of the House to what we consider to be an injustice and hope that the Minister will correct it.
§ Mr. WilleyThe hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have heard the general argument before. He has used the Amendment again as a peg for that general argument, and the trouble about that is that he is not pursuing the general argument but a line of demarcation which would be impossible to justify. It would not be a consistent or reasonable line of demarcation, and for that reason alone it would be impossible to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. WilleyI beg to move Amendment No. 108, in page 86, line 12, to leave out from the first 'of' to the first 'of' in line 13 and insert 'paragraphs 1,2,3 and 5 to 8'.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with it Amendment No. 109.
The Amendments arise because of the unsatisfactory nature of paragraph (4). We are getting rid of paragraph (4) and leaving farm buildings to be dealt with by Regulations. The detailed wording of the Regulations will be discussed with the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, both of which favour the action we are taking here.
§ Mr. Graham PageThis introduces into the Bill a new definition by regulation. It is all very well for the Minister to say that somebody outside the House has agreed this with him and will agree the regulations with him, but I am always a little suspicious of this going on outside the House and the regulations being brought before the House as a fait accompli.
I should have been happier if the Minister, in proposing the Amendment, had given us some indication of what the definition will be. For all we know it could be something completely strange to us. When an Order comes before the House for approval, or in this case, 1419 merely for annulment if any hon. Member sees fit to pray against it, then it is something of a fait accompli. The Minister could have indicated a little more what was in mind, what was to come into the regulations by way of new definitions.
§ Mr. WilleyI am not surprised to hear what the hon. Member has said. I think that if I were in his place I might well have said the same thing. But there are difficulties about this. I am not in a position to indicate what might be in the regulations, because they are being discussed with the N.F.U., and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that those affected feel that paragraph (4) is so unsatisfactory that this is the best way to deal with it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: In page 86, line 16 leave out from 'within' to 'II' in line 17 and insert:
'Part I, or within paragraph 1 or any of paragraphs 3 to 7 of Part'.—[Mr. Willey.]
§
Amendment proposed: In page 86, line 27, at end insert:
(3) Where for the purposes of any provision of this Act it falls to be determined what development of any land is or was authorised by planning permission at a time when planning permission granted on an outline application (that is to say, an application for planning permission subject to subsequent approval on any matters) is or was in force in respect of that land, any development of that land which at that time—
but no other development, shall for those purposes be taken to be, or (as the case maybe) to have been, development authorised by that permission at that time; and any reference in this Act to operations, or the carrying out of a project, authorised by planning permission shall, in relation to planning permission granted on an outline application, be construed in a corresponding way:Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the operation of section 62 of this Act.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
§ Mr. Graham PageThis is absolutely shocking and preposterous—one of the most amazing Amendments on the Notice Paper and it has not been explained to the House.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI hope that the hon. Gentleman will restrain his indignation.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI have formally moved the Amendment now. I referred to it at some length in our discussion on Amendment No. 88. Now that I have moved the Amendment, there is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not speak further, and I shall be delighted to answer him. The matter is really for the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. PageBut when this subject was touched upon on previous Amendments, we reserved this Amendment for later debate. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would at least explain why it appears on the Notice Paper at this very late stage, making a complete change in the intentions as I and many members of the public understood them previously. If the hon. Gentleman will not explain the effect of this Amendment, I shall have to do it for him
§ Mr. SkeffingtonNo, that is not right. I explained this extensively, and it is quite unfair of the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House in that way. I took the three Amendments together, and I spent a considerable time in showing exactly how this affected the relevant Clause.
§ Mr. PageI listened to that debate patiently and I took part in it at one stage, but I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary explain the purport of this Amendment. It introduces into the Bill an entirely new definition of planning permission, something which the public has not understood previously and which is quite contrary to expressions of opinion in the national and professional Press and from the Department itself.
The cases are defined in Clause 27. Case C has this definition:
Where the carrying out of a project of material development of the land is begun on or after the first appointed day.If a project of material development is begun after the appointed day, it attracts the levy. If carried out before the appointed day, it does not attract the levy.In order to ascertain what a project of material development is, one turns to 1421 Clause 64, where it is defined as a project begun when a specified operation is carried out, and in Clause 64(3) the specified operations are enumerated:
If any of those specified operations are undertaken before the appointed day, a project of material development has begun before the appointed day, and, provided that one can then discover the extent of the project, the developing owner escapes the levy because he started development before the appointed day.
- "(a) any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building;
- (b) the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building;
- (c) the laying of any undergroudn main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building or to any such trench as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph;
- (d) any operation in the course of laying out or constructing a road or part of a road;
- (e) any change in the use of any land, where that change constitutes material development."
Put baldly like that, it may be thought to draw a fictitious line so that it really does not matter morally whether a man starts a project before or after the appointed day. But, as I understand it, the reason for this provision was that, having announced the whole monstrous business of a Land Commission taking a betterment levy, the Government feared that building operations would dry up. Therefore, it was made clear by the terms of the Bill and by public statements issuing from the Ministry that developers should continue with their development, the idea being that, if they undertook development between 23rd September, 1965, when the White Paper showed the Government's intentions, and the appointed day, on the Bill becoming law, there should be no drying up of building operations at that time.
9.45 p.m.
So it was made well known that builders should continue their developments and need not fear retrospective legislation if they started their developments before the appointed day, which would be announced under the Bill. We were in doubt for some time as to what would be the appointed day but the Minister vouchsafed that to us in Committee as being 1st March, 1967. That was 1422 announced some months ago, so builders and developers have known for some time that, if they started a specified operation as defined in Clause 64, they were then starting a project of material development and would not have to pay the levy under Case C in respect of that project.
One then has to discover what is the project. One turns to Clause 67, and even if one did not, one would have to find what planning permission the developer had to carry out the project. But Clause 67—" Projects of material development begun but not completed before first appointed day "—clearly sets out that the developer must have his planning permission if he is to start the specified operation.
Then, by reference to the planning permission, one can find out what project he is starting. If he is digging the foundations for one house and he only has planning permission for one house, that is the project. If he is digging the foundations for one house but has planning permission to produce an estate of houses and the digging is part of the permission, then it is part of the project and the planning permission has been a sort of judgment of what the project must be. This is where we come up against the Amendment. I am sorry if I have spent so much time on its introduction, but developers have understood that the planning permission in this context includes outline planning permission—the permission granted without specifying the elevation of buildings, the outline of the development.
Developers have relied upon the definition of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, defined in more detail in the General Development Order. Outline planning permission is defined in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963—Statutory Instrument No. 709—which states, in Article 5(2):
Where an applicant so desires, an application, expressed to be an outline application, may be made under the preceding paragraph for permission for the erection of any buildings subject to the subsequent approval of the authority with respect to any matters relating to the siting, design or external appearance of the buildings, or the means of access thereto, in which case particulars and plans …So it is specifically stated in the Order how far an outline planning permission 1423 goes and what can be reserved, and only those items stated in that paragraph can be reserved for further consideration by the planning authority.But the outline planning permission itself is permission for development and is permission to read it into the Land Commission Bill's permission for a project of material development. What normally happens on an outline planning permission is that the local planning authority will give permission for so many houses in a certain position. It may go further and accept an outline of sites and roads to the estate. This is very normal, and if, in pursuance of that, roads are laid down, sewers are laid, that is a specified operation under the provisions of Clause 64 of the Bill.
Reliance has always been on the fact that outline planning permission has always been understood as being planning permission, and to qualify it merely by the word "outline" means there are certain further particulars to be supplied to the local authority on reliance on that many developers, many ordinary builders providing homes for the people, building their houses, have started developments in this period before the appointed day. They have made all their plans for it. Factory owners have made plans for the extension of their factories. In innumerable ways people have relied upon this fact that if they—as colloquially it has been said—dig a trench before the appointed day as part of the project for which they have outline planning permission they are relieved of the levy.
It is not quite digging a trench. It must be to contain the foundations or part of the foundations of a building. But that has been the phrase, and the fact that this has come to be a colloquial phrase like this among builders and among estate agents and among valuers and among solicitors and so on shows that it has been universally accepted that outline planning permission was what was required.
Now, a few days before Report stage, Amendment No. 110 appeared on the Notice Paper, and gave us an entirely new definition of planning permission. This cuts out outline planning permission as being something which will authorise the start of specified operations. I described this, on a previous Amendment to Clause 67 and the case put by my right 1424 hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) as something of a confidence trick. Really, whether the Minister has himself misled the public, I cannot help feeling he has allowed the public to be misled on this, and to introduce this definition of planning permission at this stage is most unfair to the public.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI think, with respect, that sometimes when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is on to a very good point he destroys it by grotesque exaggeration. A good deal of what he said in the last part of his speech is, I suggest, of that nature. It is all very well for him to say what he thinks people understand by outline planning permission, but the fact is that the definition we have used in Amendment No. 110 is identical with the definition which has already appeared for a number of years—in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, and the Control of Office & Industrial Development Act, 1965. To suggest that it is something of a new definition and quite unkown is just not so.
Furthermore, when I spoke to the Amendment I made it absolutely clear—indeed, I think the hon. Gentleman will himself remember, if he recalls some of the debates we had in Committee—that not only my right hon. Friend and I but also the Department, upon any of the inquiries which we received as to what this term "authorised by planning permission" meant, have always said that it means that any necessary planning approvals which might be required under the planning permission have been obtained.
However, at this stage, so that there should be no doubt about this, and to prevent the possibility of confusion in Clause 94, we have made the Amendment. It merely carries out the definition and explanations we have always given, and which, indeed, are in other Statutes.
This definition divides itself into two parts. Outline planning permission must have authorised the works, and any approval required under the permission must have been obtained. I have said all this before, and I cannot understand the indignation of the hon. Gentleman, which does seem to be a little beside the point.
1425 A point was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) about Article 5 of the General Development Order. He was suggesting that in Article 5 outline planning permission is granted subject to conditions in respect of a certain range of matters to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the Government Amendment, referring to "any matters", was different. That is true, but the definition is in other statutes. The definition in Amendment No. 110 is that a development which could be begun without being in conflict with the terms and conditions of a planning permission should be the only one that is acceptable. It may not be precisely the same, but to this extent I suppose the developer has an advantage.
As I say, there are reasonable precedents, and I hope that in view of the explanation, the House will feel that no great change has occurred. We have prevented confusion by ensuring that these matters are clearly defined in the definition Clause.
§ Mr. RipponDoes not the Parliamentary Secretary understand that while there might have been some justification for this definition if it had been put in the Bill at the outset, he cannot justify it tonight by saying that it is a form of words which have been used somewhere else before? The fact that this definition has been omitted from the Bill has induced people to have an entirely different impression. Nobody knows what letters the Minister may have written trying to explain what he thought was the intention of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is right in saying that people have assumed that because the definition was not in the Bill originally, it does not apply. They know the alternative definitions which are available, but we cannot say that this Amendment helps to remove confusion. What would remove confusion would be to withdraw the Amendment and leave the position as it was before, on which people have acted.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithI do not want to prolong matters by adding more than a brief word or two, more particularly as I deployed what I understand to be 1426 the position in connection with the earlier Amendments in the context of Clause 67. However, I do not find the further explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary reassuring or convincing.
The Parliamentary Secretary now says that the words in Amendment No. 110 are to be found in the Land Compensation Act, and he relies on that fact. Surely the position is this. Either the definition in the Land Compensation Act is in pari materia with the present Bill, in which case the fact that the definition was not reproduced in this Bill would lead people to assume that it was not to be incorporated here; or it is not in pari materia with the Bill, in which case the argument does not take the hon. Gentleman anywhere in any event. Therefore, I do not think that it adds powerfully to what is at best a flimsy case.
There are two points here. The first point is the injustice of changing this thing at the last moment, when people have acted in reliance on another impression. That point has been fully and forcibly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and I would not add to it, although I adopt all that has been said by my two hon. Friends.
The second matter is that it will be very confusing and prejudicial to change the well-known and well-established approach of Article V of the General Development Order and to give another meaning to outline planning permission simply to deny people an exemption, that they would otherwise have, from Case C levy. It seems to be a most unfortunate episode. Even at this late hour, the Government should think again. They should not find that difficult because this change has come at a very late hour.
§ Mr. CostainWhile there may be some legal quibble on the Amendment, may I approach it from a builder's point of view? I have declared my interest on many occasions.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
§
Ordered,
That the proceedings on the Land Commission Bill may be entered upon and proceeded
1427
with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]
§ Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. CostainMany developers and builders started developments in the belief that, according to the rules set out when the Bill was published, outline planning permission gave them exemption. I support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has said. The rules have been changed during the race.
§ Mr. Skeffington indicated assent.
§ Mr. CostainThe Parliamentary Secretary disagrees.
Would builders be right in assuming that, if they started a development on a housing estate with several types of houses and then found in the course of the development that one type was more popular than another and, because of that, change the type of house, would they, under the Amendment, leaving out all the legal jargon, be exempt? In other words, will the Minister rely on collectinig additional levy which could not have been expected when the development was started by reason of the fact that the developer had found it more satisfactory to build houses which people wanted rather than houses which they thought people might want? Or do the Government
§ propose to continue with their dictatorial attitude of telling people what they think they should want? If the Parliamentary Secretary says that the rules have not been altered during the race, can the normal procedure of altering the type of house on a development take place or not?
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI do not altogether understand the question of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). Perhaps I can repeat what the position is. It is always the best way of dealing with matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly.
I said that the definition in Clause 94 puts beyond any question of doubt the advice which we have always given, which has been repeated time and again. Either the planning permission must authorise the work itself or any approval required by the permission must be obtained. The full intention of the Amendment is that if a development could be begun without being in conflict with the terms or conditions of the planning permission the conditions will govern the development. This seems to be obviously the intention. I cannot see why anybody should quarrel with it.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 113.
1429| Division No. 189.] | AYES | [10.3 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Davies, Robert (Cambridge) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) |
| Anderson, Donald | Dewar, Donald | Hamling, William |
| Archer, Peter | Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Hannan, William |
| Ashley, Jack | Dickens, James | Harper, Joseph |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Dobson, Ray | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Doig, Peter | Hattersley, Roy |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Driberg, Tom | Hazell, Bert |
| Beaney, Alan | Dunnett, Jack | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Hilton, W. S. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Eadie, Alex | Hooley, Frank |
| Blackburn, F. | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Horner, John |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) |
| Booth, Albert | Ellis, John | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) |
| Boston, Terence | English, Michael | Hoy, James |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Ensor, David | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) | Hunter, Adam |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Jackson Peter M. (High Peak) |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Faulds, Andrew | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) |
| Cant, R. B. | Floud, Bernard | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) |
| Chapman, Donald | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Kenyon, Clifford |
| Coleman, Donald | Forrester, John | Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Fowler, Gerry | Lawson, George |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Lee, John (Reading) |
| Dalyell Tam | Gourlay, Harry | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Luard, Evan |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford) | Gregory, Arnold | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| McBride, Neil | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Small, William |
| McCann, John | Park, Trevor | Snow, Julian |
| MacColl, James | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Macdonald, A. H. | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Maclennan, Robert | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| MacPherson, Malcolm | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Marquand, David | Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. | Taverne, Dick |
| Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard | Price, William (Rugby) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Mason, Roy | Reynolds, G. W. | Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley) |
| Mayhew, Christopher | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Mellish, Robert | Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) | Wallace, George |
| Miller, Dr. M. 8. | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Molloy, William | Roebuck, Roy | Whitlock, William |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Murray, Albert | Ross, Rt. Hn. William | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Newens, Stan | Ryan, John | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Norwood, Christopher | Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N. E.) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Ogden, Eric | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | Yates, Victor |
| Orbach, Maurice | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Orme, Stanley | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | |
| Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Palmer, Arthur | Skeffington, Arthur | Mr. Fitch and Mr. Bishop. |
| NOES | ||
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Grieve, Percy | Nott, John |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian |
| Baker, W. H. K. | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Batsford, Brian | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Percival, Ian |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Biffen, John | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Hastings, Stephen | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Blaker, Peter | Hawkins, Paul | Pym, Francis |
| Body, Richard | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Brewis, John | Heseltine, Michael | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) | Higgins, Terence L. | Roots, William |
| Campbell, Gordon | Hill, J. E. B. | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John | Royle, Anthony |
| Clark, Henry | Holland, Philip | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Clegg, Walker | Hooson, Emlyn | Scott, Nicholas |
| Cooke, Robert | Hordern, Peter | Sharples, Richard |
| Costain, A. P. | Hornby, Richard | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Crawley, Aidan | Howell, David (Guildford) | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver | Hunt, John | stodart, Anthony |
| Crouch, David | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Cunningham, Sir Knox | Iremonger, T. L. | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Dance, James | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Kirk, Peter | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Elliott, N. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Maddan, Martin | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Eyre, Reginald | Maude, Angus | Webster, David |
| Farr, John | Mawby, Ray | Whitelaw, William |
| Fisher, Nigel | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Goodhart, Philip | Monro, Hector | |
| Goodhew, Victor | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grant, Anthony | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Mr. More and Mr. Younger. |
| Gresham-Cooke, R. | Murton, Oscar |
§
Further Amendment made: In page 87, line 8, at the end to insert:
(9) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section shall be of no effect unless they are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Willey.]