LAND COMMISSION

HC Deb 21 March 1967 vol 743 cc1578-624

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Price, if he can keep in order.

Mr. Price

I cannot get beyond the Title of the Statutory Instruments.

I wonder whether I might be allowed to quote from the Statutory Instrument entitled "Betterment Levy, The Case F General Regulations 1967". It says: 'disposition' has the meaning assigned to it by section 99(1) of the Act, and section 85(4) of the Act shall apply as it applies for the purpose of Part III of the Act; 'disposition falling within the antecedent period' has the meaning assigned to it by paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 5 to the Act; and 'the last relevant disposition' has the meaning assigned to it by paragraph 6 of that Schedule;". I ask whether my colleagues of the Left, Right or Centre know what that means. This is one of the few occasions on which I would be prepared to take legal advice if I thought that it would do any good. I was excluding my right hon. Friend from my question; I was asking my back bench hon. Friends. I expect a reply from my right hon. Friend in due course.

May I say, finally, or towards the end of what I have to say, that hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about the public outcry because these Statutory Instruments are very largely misunderstood. In my view, it is perhaps as well that they are misunderstood, or not understood at all, because if they were I do not think that we should be faced with a public outcry at all. I think that we should be on the verge of a revolt. [Laughter.]

Hon. Gentlemen opposite can laugh. I hope that I shall get away with this long enough to point out that they created the situation which the Minister is trying to solve, I think misguidedly, but nevertheless trying to solve. I console myself with the thought that nothing did the party opposite more harm in the 1964 Elections than the lack of desire to do anything about land prices. This is one consolation which I draw from this debate.

Whatever my views on the Commission, and particularly on the levy, and in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the Statutory Instruments, I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend and for my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I am sorry that they are getting the blame for this Act. I believe that it will take more than one genius to think up a scheme whereby the rise in land prices can be controlled by a 40 per cent. tax.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are back to the Second Reading of the parent Act now. The hon. Member must come to the Statutory Instruments.

Mr. Price

I was only going on to say that it would take a whole Cabinet full of geniuses to do that. I say with regret that I believe this legislation to be wrong in principle and to be suicidal in practice. In short—and this is my real objection—it will make it more difficult for my constituents to buy their own houses. I am not a professional abstainer by nature. I have supported the Government all along, but a situation has arisen in which I must take my bite tonight. I would dearly like to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, but, in my view, there is no reasonable doubt, and for that reason I shall be unable to follow him into the Division Lobby.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton (Poole)

It will always be a matter of considerable surprise to me that so mild a mannered man as the Minister should produce such demoniac legislation as that which is reflected in these provisions. I find it equally surprising that he can sit so complacently through this debate—as he sat through yesterday's debate—when speaker after speaker on this side of the House complained of the number and complexity of these Orders and Regulations, which are required to give effect to the Act. Our main objection is the speed with which the Act is to be put into effect.

I am told on good authority that the drafting of the Orders is unexceptionable. I would not know, because I am not competent to judge, but if the drafting is good the complexity is superb. This, in itself, is a good reason why the right hon. Gentleman and the Government should abstain from putting the Act into operation on 6th April, so that those who have to advise their clients may have a chance to absorb what is placed before them by the Government.

Yesterday, many of my hon. Friends drew attention to the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations. They referred to the Explanatory Note, which runs to five pages and purports to simplify the preceding 10 pages of the Regulations. The situation was made no easier for me because when, over the weekend, I proceeded to study the Regulations, I discovered that through some mechanical error pages 3 to 6 and 11 to 15 in my copy were missing. I am tempted to suggest that the omission of the latter pages, at least, was no disadvantage to me, because the mathematical formulae

T/T+R and R/T+R

were omitted. I feel that such mathematical examples are extremely unhelpful. Fractions were never my strong point.

I was no less confused by the paragraph dealing with the interpretation. This was referred to yesterday, but it bears reiteration. It says 'The Act' means the Land Commission Act 1967, and 'Schedule 4', 'Schedule 5', 'Schedule 6' and 'Schedule 7' mean Schedule 4, Schedule 5, Schedule 6 and Schedule 7 to the Act respectively. It goes on to provide that 'the Case F Regulations' means the Case F General Regulation 1967 (c) and 'Case F disposition' means a disposition to which regulation 3 of those Regulations applies', It then says that 'the Commission' means the land Commission At that point I came back to sanity. At least I understood what we were discussing.

I comment on these points only because I find the whole situation to be entirely unreal. However, enough has been said by other hon. Members on this subject and upon the failure of the Minister to ensure that adequate supplies of the explanatory leaflet are made available to hon. Members on both sides—because I know that tonight we have a greater attendance than we had yesterday, and hon. Members opposite are obviously anxious and worried about this matter—and, more important, to the general public. It is disgraceful that, when many anxious people want to know how the Act will affect them, the most important booklet, that entitled the Betterment Levy Explanatory Memorandum, should be temporarily out of print.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) complained that A Guide to Estate Agents and Surveyors on the Betterment Levy was not available. Could we have an exchange and mart? If he can give me the Betterment Levy Explanatory Memorandum, price 4s. 6d., I will exchange it for A Guide to Estate Agents and Surveyors on the Betterment levy, which I received free. Between us, and with the help of other hon. Members, we might succeed in getting a full hand and might be able to do something about it.

The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) complained that constituents came to him in distress because they could not obtain information about the levy's application. This is not unique. I have come across the same difficulties in my constituency—

Mr. Lubbock

Does not the hon. Member think that it would be a good idea if all these publications, which the Minister says are in print—although we have been told that they are not—should be available through the Vote Office, so that hon. Members do not have to ring up the Stationery Office and the Ministry of Housing to try to get copies?

Mr. Murton

I agree. Not only should they be in the Vote Office: they should be distributed to hon. Members without more ado, so that they know where they are. After all, 22 Statutory Instruments are concerned and I am still not sure that I have the complete set—

Mr. Willey

I appreciate that some hon. Members have had difficulties over this. We have followed the conventional procedures. I understand that copies are available in the Library. The point about Stationery Office publications being made available is a broad question, but we can certainly consider it.

Mr. Murton

The right hon. Gentleman has made a helpful suggestion, that there are copies in the Library, but if there is only one copy of the Betterment Levy Explanatory Memorandum, we shall be in difficulty—

Mr. Willey

I meant that copies are available for hon. Members in the Library. There are difficulties about the procedures by which these publications are made available, but I understand that copies have been made available for hon. Members through the Library.

Mr. Murton

The right hon. Gentleman is being helpful, but on Friday the Betterment Levy Explanatory Memorandum was not in the Library. Through the good offices of the reference section of the Library, I obtained the other three, although not this one.

I am fortunate, in view of the problems of my constituents over the past weeks, that my Parliamentary duties bring me in frequent contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He is a rara avis, in that I suspect that he knows very much more about the application of these pernicious Regulations than the Minister himself. He is the only man who is able to guide us through the labyrinthine technicalities of the Act and the Orders which flow from it.

I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman once again. Will he please tell the House what is the expected net yield of the levy at 40 per cent. under the appropriate Order, The Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order. We wish to know the net yield, after taking into account all the administrative costs and the interaction of capital gains and other taxes.

In this and the last Parliament the Minister has been pressed to answer, but he has refused to do so. Is it possible that, having made arrangements to set up 10 regional offices and having recruited a staff of 2,000—that is the minimum number; it may well be larger—and bearing in mind that the minimum cost for running these establishments will be £7 million a year, the estimated net yield will be so dangerously low that the right hon. Gentleman dare not declare it? He should at least say whether this is a fact. If not, he should explain the true position.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman what happened earlier this century. The Finance Act, 1909, introduced the Lloyd George Land Tax. In 1920, it was abandoned. It had cost £5 million to administer and had given a yield of only £1.3 million. Are we to be faced with the same situation with this levy?

The newly appointed Chairman of the Land Commission was reported recently as having stated about the 40 per cent. levy that he is expecting to make a substantial profit, although no figures were given. Will the Land Commission keep these profits and use them compulsorily to acquire more and more of other people's land, or will some of the money be passed to the Exchequer for the relief of taxpayers? Will the application of the 40 per cent. levy increase the costs of industrial development, on which the economy of the country depends? The answer must be "Yes" and I fear that this levy will be one more penalty on industry which, already faced with a lack of consumer demand, is cutting back on its capital investment this year by 10 per cent.

If ever there was a case of hamstringing a horse and then whipping it for failing to gallop, this is it.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

One argument advanced against approving these Instruments is that there are too many of them and that they are complex. Having looked through them, I find that they are no more complex than the Regulations issued under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. With its advertisement Regulations, use classes Regulations and general development orders, that Measure contained many complicated matters, and these merely follow the same pattern. Many of them apply to only a small section of the population; for example, the minerals Regulations do not apply to my constituents. Although complex, they are excusable.

Mr. Lubbock

Would the hon. Gentleman turn to the Memorandum covering the Betterment Levy (Tenancies and Reversions) Regulations and give the House a brief explanation of the fourth paragraph on page 12?

Mr. Fraser

It is contrary to professional practice to give free advice. I would not care suddenly to take hold of any Regulation under any of the Town and Country Planning Acts and supply such off-the-cuff information. However, that is no reason for saying that these Instruments should not be approved. Many of the arguments advanced against these Instruments are, I suggest, devised to delay the operation of the Regulations and to make the Measure unworkable.

It is true that our legislation and Statutory Instruments are becoming more complex. But this is not a reflection on my right hon. Friend or on the adequacy of the Government. It is a reflection on the way in which we draft our law. If something needs to be done about that, it can be done elsewhere, perhaps by the Law Commission. I agree that the law is far too complex and difficult to ascertain. Many laws are extremely complicated and difficult to ascertain, but that is no reason for running away from a problem that must be faced.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Very early during the passage of the Land Commission Bill through the House I wrote to him asking whether he would issue an explanatory pamphlet very soon after the enactment of the Measure. To his very great credit, he has done so. He has done very much better than did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took three or four months after the passing of Finance Acts to issue Regulations.

I want to deal particularly with the betterment levy, because this Regulation was attacked by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). One is never quite sure whether, when the right hon. Gentleman attacks something, he reflects the views of the Opposition Front Bench or his own, but he is a man to whom great respect should be paid in these matters and I want to deal with the point he raised about the 40 per cent. This has also been referred to by several other hon. Members and by hon. Members of the Liberal Party—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) told me that he intended to vote against all the Regulations.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is not the custom in the House to discuss what hon. Members say to each other outside.

Mr. Lubbock

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this conversation has been mentioned, I said that I felt inclined to vote against all the Regulations because I had not had an adequate explanation of their meaning from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman made his speech yesterday. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Fraser

I was about to deal with the betterment levy. This is to be at the rate of 40 per cent. It is important that this levy should be applied, and it would be a gross breach of pledges given if the percentages were less. That is a very good reason for fixing it at that figure, but I would prefer the Statutory Instrument to go further, and instead of making it nearly 40 per cent. it should be—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot amend a Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Fraser

Very well, Mr. Speaker.

I think that 40 per cent. is a perfectly reasonable rate. Someone paying standard rate Income Tax who is prepared to work overtime, sweat at work, and leave the bosom of his family, pays tax at 42½ per cent. on his hard-earned money. Someone who invests in stocks and shares, takes a risk and makes a modest short-term capital gain pays 42½ per cent. tax. This levy of 40 per cent. is very modest, and one that should be generally welcomed. I would find it extremely difficult to explain to standard rate taxpayers paying tax at the rate of 42½ per cent. that someone who can make up to 3,800 per cent. on the development of agricultural land will pay tax at only 40 per cent.

Mr. William Price

This is the crux of the argument. Does my hon. Friend know of any occasion when any Government have introduced any tax which eventually did not get passed to the man in the street?

Mr. Fraser

Precisely, but I am not prepared to argue that point now. If a man who works overtime has to pay 42½ per cent. tax on his overtime earnings, why should not someone who makes an uncovenanted and very large gain by developing a piece of land pay 40 per cent.?

Mr. Murton

rose—

Mr. Fraser

I do not wish to give way. I have often stayed in this Chamber for long hours, not being able to deliver a speech because other hon. Members have given way. I think that I have now given way enough.

I had hoped that we would find the Liberal Party voting for the betterment levy at 40 per cent. The former leader of the Liberal Party, in 1947, when the betterment levy was discussed, criticised a levy of less than 100 per cent. He said: This so-called Socialist Government says 'Well done thou good and faithful servant' to the man who happens to own the land, 'You have done nothing to increase the value of that land, but you have it'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1007.] If the leader of the Liberal Party in 1947 was able to advocate a levy of 100 per cent., I hope that his followers today could support a levy of 40 per cent. Lloyd George said: God gave the land to the people. The party apparently can accept the proposition that at least God gave 40 per cent. of betterment value to the people.

An hon. Member opposite argued that some of the money from the levy should pass into the Exchequer. I put the converse of it. I hope that in winding up the debate, my right hon. Friend will tell us how the money will be used. I am extremely concerned about local authorities such as the Greater London Council which, under a beneficent Labour rule, has been acquiring premises for residential development and providing green and pleasant land for areas which lack open space. I hope that the money raised by way of the 40 per cent. levy will be applied to other planning operations in other parts of the country and I hope that tonight the Minister will say something about the disposal of the money for this purpose.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) said that the drafting of these Instruments was exemplary. I quarrel with that. I find the great majority of them almost as incomprehensible as the Act itself.

Some of the provisions as applied to England and those which apply to Scotland show a great divergence. If we look at the Material Development (Scotland) Regulations and the Material Development Regulations which apply to England and Wales, we find a very serious discrepancy which will have an adverse effect in Scotland. Paragraph 2(1) of the Schedule to the England and Wales Order says: The carrying out on land used for agriculture of any building or other operations, requisite for the use of that land for the purposes of agriculture other than operations for the erection, enlargement, improvement or alteration of—

1. (a) dwelling houses, or
2. (b) buildings of more than 5,000 sq. ft. in superficial ground area which are to be used for or in connection with the breeding, rearing or fattening of livestock and which are erected or constructed on land comprised in an agricultural unit which does not exceed 5 acres in that area."

The whole of paragraph (b) is missing from the Material Development (Scotland) Regulations, 1957. One is bound to ask why. How were these provisions framed? Were they framed separately by the Scottish Development Department and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? One is tempted to ask, was there any sort of liaison between the two Departments? If there was none, one can understand the discrepancy. If there was collusion, why was paragraph (b) left out of the Scottish Statutory Instrument?

Agriculture, particularly the breeding of cattle, is a very important part of the Scottish economy. If we are to be penalised because of this dichotomy—which seems a rather popular word in this House these days—of reasoning, it seems a very bad thing. The serious aspect is that Statutory Instruments are not amendable. If the Minister of State, Scottish Office—I am glad to see him here—decides that "little (b)", which has been left out of the Material Development (Scotland) Regulations, is pertinent and necessary, how on earth is it to be brought into the Statute? This is an extremely important point and I hope that, if we do not have a dichotomy of replies, the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to write to me and let me know the answer.

Paragraph 5 of the Statutory Instrument contains the words: … as often as the person having the right to rebuild may desire … That is an extraordinary statement to find in a Statutory Instrument. It looks as though the Government foresee various people tearing down buildings, putting them up again and then tearing them down again merely to escape the betterment levy.

Paragraph 9 deals with physical recreation. It contains the words: … physical recreation taken otherwise than within the confines of a building … Certain things do not require buildings which I maintain come under the heading of physical recreation—for instance, the erection of the machinery for clay pigeon shooting. As a result of establishing a range of that nature, certain hard standings have to be provided for those who shoot. This is a material development. It is changing the use of the land. I wonder if that sport will be exempt under the Statutory Instrument.

Paragraph 17 says: 'original' means, in relation to a building existing on the first appointed day, the building as existing on that day, and in, in rela- tion to a building which is completed after the first appointed day, the building as so completed, and 'originally erected' has a corresponding meaning;". That is utterly incomprehensible. I draw attention particularly to the words … on that day, and in, in relation to …". What on earth does that mean? It is quite conceivable that it is a misprint.

Mr. Clegg

Is it Gaelic?

Mr. Baker

One could possibly understand that reasoning because this is a Scottish Order.

What do the words … and in, in relation to … mean? I remind the Minister of State, Scottish Office, again that these Statutory Instruments are not amendable. Are we to have to put up with this sort of gibberish as part of the law of the land, or can we have some indication that the dual use of the word "in" is necessary in the Schedule?

There is no doubt that these Statutory Instruments are utterly incomprehensible. I was paid a high compliment recently at a party meeting when the Act was discussed. The chairman of the meeting said, as I entered, "Here comes probably the only man who can understand the Act." It was highly complimentary but, having got to Section 3, I started to wallow in verbiage and my feet are still wet from it. Be that as it may, these Statutory Instruments will not in any way help in the understanding or in the application of the Act, and we must have a great deal of simplification, particularly when we have phrases such as "and in, in relation to".

10.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

With permission, I should like to acknowledge the three points. In view of the interest in the main burden of the debate, I shall take only a few moments to do so. However, before doing that, I want to explain that for Scotland all of these matters are grouped under three headings—the Great Britain and Scottish Regulations, which require affirmative Resolution, the English Regulations, which correspond to the Scottish Regulations, and the Scottish, English and Great Britain Regulations, which do not require the affirmative Resolution, but which are indirectly relevant.

I have put it like that because there are Great Britain Regulations which affect the position in Scotland and there are English circumstances, for example in relation to Case F, which could apply to Scotland and there are peculiarly Scottish points. But in general, because of the Scottish situation with the Scottish feudal system as it stands—and my right hon. Friend has readily agreed to my saying this and it is said without offence to our English friends—the English Regulations are a straightforward adaptation of the corresponding Scottish Regulations, the adaptation being effected by the substitution of appropriate references to English statutory provisions and the replacement of Scottish by corresponding English legal terms, and so on.

The reason is that we start from an extremely complicated position in Scotland, much more so than is the position in England. I should make it quite clear that by taking these feudal specialities into consideration the Land Commission is in no way indicating that the Government want to hold or prolong the feudal system in Scotland. However, the whole system of Scottish land tenure needs a great deal of investigation, and I am informed that any decisions which we may take in the light of the recommendations of the Halliday Committee, for example, can be fitted into the Land Commission system. I have to make that proviso before acknowledging the three matters which the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) has raised.

The first issue arises because of the difference between the English and the Scottish Material Development Regulations concerning intensive farm production buildings and the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred by reading what he called, "little (b)". The reason for this is, of course, clearly because the town and country planning General Development Orders for Scotland and England are different. We in Scotland enjoy—this could be argued—an advantage in that we do not in our General Development Order include within the categorisation of material development intensive farm production buildings. We have not had the problems regarding this development which England has had to endure and for which special Regulations have had to be made.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that we are at a disadvantage. I am sure that the English would have a very strong case if broiler houses and other intensive farm methods were to be transferred to Scotland from England. The English would have a legitimate complaint which we would have to consider when it arose, but at the moment it does not arise, and if there is an advantage it is an advantage to Scotland and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to disagree about that. Certainly the people in Banff would be very surprised if he did.

He then asked for an explanation about parts of paragraph 9 which is concerned with physical recreation. These all flow from the ways in which we have dealt with the general development Orders in Scotland as opposed to those in England, without making a situation, which I admit to be complex, even more complex, as we would if we changed the rules at this stage.

We are seriously trying to keep this in line with the general development Orders in both countries, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if we did not do that we would be in serious danger of making an already complicated matter even more so. The burden of his argument was that he did not want us to go any further in this. If anything, he said that we had already gone too far.

The last point that he raised concerned the interpretation section. I know that in another place this has been discussed. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has taken advice, and I have had the advantage over him, in that I have had more time to look this up. There is nothing in law that could in any way make this an awkward matter. The fact that the word "in" occurs twice does not alter the meaning. We have taken legal advice.

The alternative would be to withdraw the Regulation altogether, which would mean that we would defeat the major object of the exercise, which is to apply Regulations by 6th April. I do not want to touch on what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say about the timing, but the Government cannot accept that we should miss 6th April as a date. Certainly on this matter, which is clearly a misprint, even if we could not amend it—as I am told we can, administratively —if this were left, it would not make a button's worth of difference. Since we are prepared to live with it, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should do the same.

Mr. Baker

Can the hon. Gentleman answer my question about the use of a range for clay pigeon shooting? Does it come under the term "recreation"?

Dr. Mabon

Without notice I could not give a direct answer, but I am told that it would fall within it. If the hon. Gentleman would leave it with me, I will write him a letter on the matter.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I do not rise to cut short the debate from this side of the House on these Statutory Instruments, but because we have, if we wish to speak about those which are prayed against, to do so before half-past eleven o'clock. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to address some of his remarks to answering the questions which have been made in some detail on those particular Orders.

When the Land Commission Bill, which is now an Act, was debated in this House, the Minister was told again and again how difficult it was to understand the terms of the Bill. I am using very moderate words. It was called unintelligible, incomprehensible, gibberish, mumbo-jumbo and a lot of other similar epithets, and very nearly the four letter words referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg).

No one was left in any doubt that the Act would need a great deal of study and explanation before it could be operated and that it ought not to be brought in within a couple of months after it had received the Royal Assent. It was clear that very careful and very clearly expressed Orders would be necessary in order to implement the half-formed—I nearly said half-witted—provisions of the Act. The Act received the Royal Assent on 1st February, 1967, and on 8th February the Minister made an Order, No. 146 of 1967, fixing the day on which the Land Commission could start its seizure of people's property, and the date from which certain transactions would give rise to a tax, which it is estimated, will realise £80 million a year.

The appointed day was fixed at only eight weeks after the making of the Order, as 6th April 1967. At least that Order was intelligible, though it is quite incomprehensible that the Minister should have made it with that totally inadequate period for studying the Act, and for bringing in the Orders, under which the Act will operate. Bearing in mind the outcry there had been about the hideous complexity of the Act, to use the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), to give only eight weeks between the making of the Order and the appointed day by the Order was the act of a cynic or a tyrant. We shall divide the House on the First Appointed Day Order because we consider it essential that a longer period should be given before putting the Act into operation.

We have not been playing at politics or anything like that when we have said that the Act is impossible to understand in the time allowed. It is impossible to digest it. At the time when, on 8th February, the appointed day was fixed as eight weeks later, not one Order was available so that anyone could see how the Act would operate. Therefore, those whose work is deeply affected by the Act were attending conferences, seminars, lectures and the like at 30 and 40 guineas a day—and it takes a lot to get a busy professional man out of his office to attend school again. The Minister may smile. I declare an interest. I have been giving some of these lectures and I know how very concerned the professional men are about this matter. I have never had such big meetings politically as I have had from those who want to understand the Bill.

No one at that time, six weeks before the appointed day, could tell those gentlemen the most practical matters of the operation of the Act. They are only just emerging in the Orders which are before us tonight. After 8th February, we had to wait three weeks of those all-important eight weeks before the first Order came before the House. That was the one concerning the prescribed rate of levy, which was laid on 28th February, and then only in draft. It is not an Order which was made for certain from which one could be sure of what would be the law.

Then there was a lapse of another week, and with only four weeks to go before the appointed day the House received six Orders, which had been made but do not come into operation before the House approve them. Thus the law was still not known. Four of those Orders came on 6th March and two on 8th March. Those six Orders, which are essential to an understanding of the Act, dealt with material development, Case F and the betterment levy on minerals. All this was four weeks before the appointed day.

Apart from the First Appointed Day Order, the other seven Statutory Instruments are not effective until this debate is finished and they are given the approval of the House. One is in draft. The other six require the affirmative Resolution of the House, and two of the six require affirmative Resolution of the other House—and we are only two weeks from the appointed day.

I apologise if I appear to be giving the script of one of the old silent movies in which the heroine is strapped to the railroad track as the express approaches, but that is about the condition of things. We are faced with two weeks in which to learn how to operate the Act. It is not a matter of operating the Act by a lot of bureaucrats, civil servants or members of the Land Commission. There are thousands of professional men and property owners who must know before 6th April how the Act works.

After we had the six Statutory Instruments which required affirmative Resolutions, the others began to pour in: four on 6th March, six on 8th March, one on 15th March, two on 14th March and one on 16th March. Those are the ones which we are discussing tonight. I regret to say that out of all this mêlée of Orders, I missed one which came in on 13th March and is not on the Order Paper. If the diligence of Members in this House cannot even discover that an Order has been published, how on earth are people outside to understand these things? Twenty-four Orders under this Act have to be considered at the eleventh hour, in order to see how they affect a million transactions a year. That is not my figure. That is the hon. Gentleman's figure. A million transactions a year will be affected by the Act, and a number of the Orders before us will affect every one of those million, because they deal with notification of the transactions.

Nobody minds if this sort of travesty of legislation undermines confidence in the Government. What we do mind is that it undermines confidence in the law, and that it undermines confidence in plans for future progress and construction in this country.

Nobody minds if the Government make fools of themselves over this, but people do mind if the Government make fools of them. That is what is happening. These Orders are the biggest price of April-foolery that has ever been played on the public, but disasters and tragedies do occur from practical jokes, and disasters will happen from these Orders, in particular from the prescribed levy Order, the rate of the levy.

It imposes a levy of 40 per cent. on the net development value of property. It will increase the price of land and buildings. It will increase the cost of homes, factories, shops and offices. But do not let us waste any more time arguing that point. If we tax an article, the price goes up, and that is all there is to it. There is no point in anyone saying that this Act will reduce the price of land. The Minister claimed that this levy Order would cause land to be brought forward for development. He disclosed his philosophy about this. He said that put on a levy of 40 per cent. on 6th April, 1967, and developers would rush to start development, and therefore land would be released; put on 45 per cent. or threaten 45 per cent. next April, and we would keep the rush up; threaten 50 per cent. the following April and we would still get people coming in trying to beat the levy.

Of course, we know that this happens with every pre-Budget wedding, but what a way to govern the country. Is this really the policy which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward as the main policy for bringing land forward for development? I wonder if he has been looking out of the window of the train or aircraft in which he may travel to Sunderland at the weekends and laughing with a sort of fiendish glee as he meets a number of labourers digging trenches in order to start development before 6th April.

This really is a childish game. It is as unseemly for the Minister as it is for those who are forced to indulge in it. But it is the only way that the levy will make the land available at a sort of "pre-rise of levy rush" before April of every year.

The Minister estimates that the Order will filch out of the incentive for development the sum of £80 million gross a year, but he has stubbornly refused to say how this sum is calculated. We must therefore make our own calculation. If the levy is 40 per cent., then £80 million must represent a net development value, arising out of the transactions in any one year, amounting to £200 million. Does the Minister really say that these 1 million transactions, and the 10 per cent. of those which he says will attract levy—only 10 per cent.—will produce a net development value each year of £200 million? Land dealers already pay tax on the whole of their profits, so a substantial part of the £80 million will be set against the taxable profits, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose 64 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the larger part of the £80 million.

This prescribed rate Order represents the taxation of the public, by Statutory Instrument, in the sum of £80 million gross. It produces net we know not what. The Minister has not told us; neither has he brought the Chancellor of the Exchequer here to tell us how much money is being taken from the public net. We are talking about £80 million gross. We do not know what it will be net, after the loss by the Exchequer of Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax has been set off. I had hoped that the Chancellor would be here to help us in these debates, and particularly to explain what the rate Order means.

There are in these instruments some things which are comprehensible. The appointed day, 6th April, and the levy, 40 per cent.—we can comprehend them. Some other objects stagger out of the fog of incomprehensibility, and I want to refer to them as showing how objectionable these Orders are. I am not arguing that they are all incomprehensible. We can see, in some cases, how objectionable they are.

I take them in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. First, there are the Material Development Regulations, with which go the Material De- velopment (Scotland) Regulations. These graciously exempt certain works and acts from attracting a levy. They are set out in the Schedule. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that when a person sells a house and pays a levy of no development value on the purchase price he does not also have to pay for putting up a "House Sold" sign outside the house. The Order excuses him.

Is it not astonishing that we should go to the limit of making a Statutory Instrument providing that a person should not have to pay a levy for putting up a "House Sold" or "For Sale" board outside his house? But for the Regulations this would have been advertising. The Minister went back on his word, as given in the White Paper, that advertising would not affect material development. He has now said that it will, and so he has had to go through this elaborate procedure of exempting things like "For Sale" boards outside houses, and flagpoles with flags on them.

Another part of the Regulations provides that a person is allowed, without having to pay a levy, to turn a room of 200 sq. ft. into a shop, but that if it is 201 sq. ft. he will be chargeable to levy. A person can add a room or a garage to his house if it is not more than 10 ft. by 10 ft. by 10 ft., but if it is 10 ft. by 10 ft. by 11 ft. he has to pay the levy. That is the sort of stupid position we are in in relation to the Material Development Regulations. Where, in all that rigmarole, do we find the laudable purpose of the Act and the Orders, of reducing the price of land and bringing forward land for development? Where does that come out of a Statutory Instrument of the kind to which I have referred?

I turn now to the Betterment Levy (Minerals) Regulations. One would think that they make mineral working chargeable to levy, but they do not, except in a few cases. They relieve the mineral worker, but they require payment from the grantor of mineral rights. They require payment in the form of a lump sum before the grantor receives any rent or royalties from the rights he has granted. This is unfair discrimination between the grantor and the developer which occurs nowhere else in the Act or the Orders.

Then, No. 6 on the Order Paper, we have the Case F Regulations and the Case F Regulations for Scotland—No. 9 on the Paper. These introduce a levy on a wayleave. In case any hon. Member or right hon. Member happens not to know what a wayleave is, wayleaves include such things as a telephone wire across one's land, or a gaspipe laid across one's garden. If one allows that to happen, one is chargeable to levy. This is the sort of nonsense we have got to under this Act.

Then come the Case F Supplemental Regulations. In this case, having laid down in the Act a formula for certain transactions, it has to be entirely altered by second thoughts in Regulations which come before the House a fortnight before the Act comes into operation, and those who have taken the trouble to learn the elaborate Schedules to the Act find they have to learn them all over again.

Numbered 12 on the Paper are the Betterment Levy (Credits for Case F) Regulations. Here we have a formula in the Act which now results in an absurdity: if we apply the formula in the Act to Case F we find that the levy may be charged on a minus quantity. Why should the public have to submit to this sort of thing? The Government having learned that these formulas result in an absurdity, a levy on a minus quantity, we have to think it out all over again.

Next are the Betterment Levy (Notification) Regulations. We were told again and again during the course of the Bill that all that had to be done if we sold our house, and took all these various transactions in cases A to F, was to fill in an ordinary form which is always submitted with a conveyance or lease for stamping. These Regulations give the lie to that. I have before me a very interesting table compiled by the Law Journal in which it gives 14 different types of notification of transactions to the Land Commission and only three of those 14 would come within the simple credits particulars form. Here we have notifications under Schedule 1, Part III; Schedule 1, Part II; Schedule 2, Part I; Schedule 2, Part II; Schedule 3, Part II; and so on. It was quite right that we said that notification, whether a chargeable act or not, would give the public a great deal of trouble and many of the transactions should be exempt. These Regulations require so much notification which is entirely unnecessary if only 10 or 15 per cent. of the transactions are to be charged to levy.

Then come the planning assumptions Regulations. These bring in a third definition of the material development and by doing so they reduce the base value on which net development value is calculated. If it reduces the base value this increases the figure on which levy is payable. There is a greater charge to levy imposed by the Regulations.

Then there are the tenancies and reversions Regulations. Nothing emerges from the fog here. It is absolutely terrible to try to understand it, and I do not intend to do so. I have only four or five more on the Paper, and I will deal with them briefly. There are the Betterment Levy Regulations which give the levy payer an allowance with one hand and take it away with the other; these are second thoughts about the Act itself, something which was forgotten in the drafting of the Act.

There are the Betterment Levy (Waiver of Interest) Regulations, which allow waiver of interest to certain persons who may be liable for the payment of levy. The Order brings out the fact that a levy payer may be called upon to pay the levy without having received a penny from the transaction on which the levy is charged. These are cases in which the levy payer may be required to pay a lump sum when he is receiving only rent or royalties or an instalment of the payments.

The vesting declaration prescribed form shows the whole arrogance of these Orders. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde referred to this. If any member of the public likes to look at the Schedule to the Order—it is in small print and a little difficult to read—he will see that here we have the form of vesting declaration—a deed for one party, the Land Commission, vesting someone's property in itself, vesting it by merely reciting that there has been a compulsory purchase order, not even reciting that notice of the compulsory purchase order has been served on the owner, but just declaring that the property is transferred to the Land Commission at some date which the Land Commission itself will certify—and its certificate will be in the form of "The editor's decision is final". This is the most arrogant piece of legislation that has ever come before the House. It comes into operation without any notice being served on the owner. It is certified as being in operation entirely at the whim of the Land Commission.

The last Order is the Betterment Levy (Rate of Interest) Order. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that it would probably be necessary to bring in another Order because since he drafted it Bank Rate had dropped. He should take the Order away straightaway and not present it to the House on this occasion.

It is not merely because these Orders are incomprehensible in general that we object to them. It is in particular that they are a gross encroachment on the liberty of the subject and an arrogant imposition of bureaucratic powers. The Minister should taken them away and postpone the operation of the Act.

11.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

No one could complain that the debate on the Regulations has been lacking in variety. We have had some most interesting detailed technical points, to which I shall reply as far as I can in the time that has been allotted to me. I understand that for certain reasons of convenience the House wants to come to a conclusion before very long.

Mr. Rippon

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I clarify the position for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary? We are very anxious to hear him whatever length of time he requires.

Mr. Skeffington

I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has started to cross swords so early thought I was meeting his convenience. I try to do that kind of thing. But if he would like me not to do so I shall know in future, but I rather regret what he said.

Mr. Rippon

I apologise to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary if he misunderstands me. I was just making a procedural point, making it clear to him that there was no need or desire to bring the debate to a conclusion by any particular time, that we were anxious that he should not feel pressed for time and that we wanted to hear what he had to say.

Mr. Skeffington

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It seems, therefore, that his first intervention was probably unnecessary.

I was saying that I shall try to reply to as many points as I can. Some of them were new; some others we have covered again and again in Committee and on Report.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman really made two speeches. At one stage he was being very helpful and constructive, but then he put on a swashbuckling attitude and became rather less relevant to the Orders and not very helpful.

I shall reply to some of the broader, general reflections so far as I can remain in order. Frankly, a number of the points made were on the edge of order as I understand it, and if I attempted to follow them too closely—for example, by taking up the references to Section 63—I think I might find myself in conflict with the Chair.

I certainly cannot answer the point made by some hon. Gentlemen indirectly as to why and how the Land Commission could reduce the burden of the cost of land. But I refer those who are interested in truth to the four reasons I gave in my winding up speech on Third Reading on 31st October.

I think that I can best serve the House by trying as far as possible to refer to the detailed points made on the Order. The only coin I shall exchange with the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon), who concluded by talking of the paralysing effect of the Land Commission, is to refer him to a paragraph in last Sunday's Observer. It said: All over Britain sites which have grown weeds for years have suddenly sprung into life as developers carry out specified operations. That may be right or wrong, but it is certainly not a picture of paralysis.

I must make one general point about which there is some political significance, and which the Opposition have used. In the interests of the public I should also put the other side. It concerns the complexities of the Orders and Regulations. I wish that I could tell the House that the Orders we are discussing are not complex, but I must admit that some are. I am sorry that that is so, and that the House must deal with these complex matters. Unfortunately, in many spheres today the House must deal with very complicated legislation. Every Finance Bill has sections that are very complicated—I think particularly not only of the 1965 Act but also of the 1961 Act. Most of us recall the complexities of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959.

The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred to a series of Orders or Statutes. They were not passed by this Government, but must be incorporated into the Act, unless one is to change the entire land and planning Acts. It is bound to—

Mr. Eyre

rose—

Mr. Skeffington

I have very little time.

Mr. Eyre

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He knows that the professions have not had a fair chance to prepare for the administration of the Act and these Regulations by 6th April. That is the critical point that the Opposition are trying to make. Would he agree that extra time should be given to them?

Mr. Skeffington

I want to say something about that later in my speech, if I have time.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

On a point of order. Why does the hon. Gentleman keep referring to his lack of time? Can we not discuss the Order relating to the first appointed day until any hour of the night, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Skeffington

Further to that point of order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that one cannot discuss the Prayers after 11.30 p.m. I was anxious to do so and serve the House. I should have thought that that was reasonable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

The debate on the Prayers will come to an end at 11.30 p.m.

Mr. Farr

Further to that point of order. Does not the debate on the Motion continue thereafter? Will the Question be put separately so that discussion may continue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Technically, we are discussing the first motion on the Order Paper, No. 3—the Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order 1967—and, as Mr. Speaker announced when the debate commenced yesterday morning, it was decided that for the convenience of the House all the Motions, including those that require affirmative Resolution, and the Prayers should be discussed together.

Today there was added Motion No. 10: That the Land Commission (First Appointed Day) Order 1967 (S.I. 1967, No. 146), dated 8th February, 1967, be withdrawn. in respect of which there is a suspension order, but, as the Minister has intimated, under our rules of order debate on the Prayers will automatically come to an end at 11.30 p.m.

Mr. Rippon

Further to that point of order. May we assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we do not mind that, that we wish to vote on the affirmative Order, Motion No. 3, and on No. 10, which is that the appointed day Order should be withdrawn? That is satisfactory for our purpose to show that we want the whole of this operation to be postponed. We would therefore be most anxious that he should answer this debate as fully as possible. Thereafter, those hon. Members who wish to continue the debate can do so, I understand, both on the affirmative Orders and on Motion No. 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is so, but it will not be possible to discuss the Prayers after 11.30 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after the Minister sits down, does that mean that I am preventing my hon. Friends from voting on the Prayers?

Mr. Rippon

We do not wish to vote on the Prayers.

Mr. Skeffington

Perhaps we can see how far we get before the magic hour. I am at the disposal of the House and if any hon. Member wants to continue the debate all night, and I have permission to speak again, I will answer any questions. The last thing that I want to do is to burke any issues.

I would emphasise that from the earliest days of the White Paper there have been constant consultations with the professions at all stages. It is against that background that we must consider the time factor.

I understand that the Opposition have now accepted in principle the policy of some impost on betterment. They have not said what the rate should be or to whom it should be applied, but if they imply that it would be possible to have an effective and just scheme of betterment without fairly complex legislation, they are misleading themselves—which perhaps does not matter much—and they are deceiving the country. As we have seen time and again, to translate the techniques of valuation into precise legal language required by the courts is bound to be difficult and complex. This is not the fault of the Government or, I hope hon. Members opposite will agree, due to their incompetence. It is the existing state of the law. If we want to improve that we have to look at actions which have been taken elsewhere in connection with the Law Commission under the brilliant leadership of Sir Leslie Scarman, through which many of these problems, we hope and believe, can be simplified.

The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham asked a great many questions and I will reply to as many as possible. He asked how many regulations were to come. There are only two sets more. Under Schedule 7, Regulations have to be made in dealing with Estate Duty where this is applied to the interest in respect of land and under the Acquisition of Land Act a Regulation has also to be presented specifying a form of notice explaining the meaning of vesting declaration provisions. Both of these will shortly be available.

I was asked why there were no Regulations under Sections 59 and 60. Section 59 deals with the exemption for non-charitable housing associations. No regulations are necessary because the Minister has absolute discretion in the matter. Section 60 deals with the Case C exemption shortly after disposal in Cases A and B, and this is a matter in which the Commission has absolute discretion, and therefore power to make regulations is not provided.

I was asked about the laying of the Orders. The more important Orders—all those requiring affirmative Resolution and the other Regulations to which they refer—were laid on 6th and 8th March, a month before the appointed day. The provisions had previously been discussed in considerable detail by my right hon. Friend and myself in Committee and also with the professions.

A number of points have been made about the rate of levy. We have been asked whether the rate would be increased from 40 per cent. As we have said many times, it is intended that the rate shall be increased progressively to 45 and 50 per cent. Some of my hon. Friends have always thought the 40 per cent. rate too low. Hon. Members opposite think it too high. The Government think that it is a modest beginning. But it would be wrong for any Government to commit themselves in advance on these fiscal matters and I cannot give a date for the increase or say whether, indeed, the levy should not go above 50 per cent. Strong arguments have been advanced, by those interested, that the rate should go to 60 or even 75 per cent. The second appointed day will be determined by the Government in due course in the light of the various factors with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar.

On the Minerals Regulations, we were asked why no exemption is given to landowners when they grant mineral leases, whereas exemption is given to mineral operators. One main reason for the levy applying to those granting leases or licences is to obtain for the community part of the new value attaching to the land as a result of the operations. I am surprised that such a question should have been asked by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend explained that a mineral operator is creating a wasting development. As time goes on, he may end up with something valueless and consequently the exemption is made in his case. This has been generally accepted as fair and proper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about specific operations and a wider definition. We have had discussions with the industry about this and it raised no objection. On a matter of interpretation in industry and elsewhere, we do not expect any difficulty.

One of the most difficult Orders is the Tenancies and Reversions Order. But I re-emphasise that the difficulty is not due to maliciousness on the part of my right hon. Friend. It arises from the nature of the intricacies with which we are dealing when one gets the complication of a tenancy and reversion with the creation of two interests in a unit of land where one interest previously existed.

If one is having a levy or any other scheme and is trying to be fair and effective, one gets the situation where a new interest is created leading to difficulty in the equation of the burdens to be borne. I must say that sometimes I think that if we had ridden a little rough shod we might have got better treatment and less complexity.

In Case B—the grant of a tenancy by a landlord—one knows the interest of the landlord and he can be so assessed. Where a tenancy or lease is granted, there are two interests which have to be catered for. The whole of this Order, difficult as it is to determine the two interests in the same land, is designed to see how they should be assessed for future chargeable acts.

Some criticism has been made of the fractions. I must admit that I am not keen on the symbols, but I think that on reflection hon. Members opposite will appreciate that they do themselves less credit than they might when they make this symbol fearsome when it is not. Perhaps I can quickly explain the three elements of the formula, which is intended to be helpful rather than the reverse.

T is quite simple, as hon. Members who have read the Explanatory Note will know. It is simply the amount of the consideration given for a Class B tenancy. R is the discounted market value of the right to the reversion of the Class B tenancy. I think that that is clear and straight forward. The sum T plus R represents the total value of the interest out of which the tenancy has been carved. T is the element which lasts for the duration of the tenancy and R is the residual element when the lease ends, the reversion.

Although this is a fatal thing to do, I should like to give an example which will make this crystal clear. If a tenancy is granted out of a freehold at a rent of £1,000 a year and the expectant market value of the freehold at the end of the tenancy is £16,000; then the equation is T, that is the rent of £1,000 a year and which could be capitalised in the market at, say, £12,000; R, which is the £16,000, discounted to the ultimate end and the reversion of the lease—one would probably have to pay about £4,000, although in fact one cannot get one at present—so that the equation becomes T—£12,000—over T plus R, which is the total value of the whole interest—£16,000—or three to four, which gives the proportions in which levy would be charged on the interest of the parties.

Mr. Rippon

It is helpful to have these figures and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help us a little further with that example. Will he, say on that example what amount of 40 per cent. levy would be payable and what in addition would be paid as tax if the person concerned were a trader in land—would it be 64 per cent.? Can he give the figures if it was a close company? Would it be 70 per cent.? Can he give similar figures for levy at 45 and 50 per cent.?

Mr. Skeffington

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not expect such figures. It depends on the amount of development value in the particular case and, of course, I cannot say what that would be. I have shown how the formula, which is simple, is applied when all the other factors are known. It is not nearly as difficult as the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others have suggested.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised another important matter, that of Regulation 14. I ought to deal with this at some length, because, although it is not unduly complex, it has been misunderstood. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that Regulation 14 was inequitable. When he has heard what I have to say, I do not think that he will take that view.

The Explanatory Note says that Regulation 7 under the scheme of levy ensures that notification is made of disposals where development value is realised, because unless the purchaser notifies, he will not get his Schedule 5 base value on a later occasion. That concept comes adrift when a tenancy is granted, because, as hon. Members will see from the fourth paragraph on page 13 of the explanatory note, a tenant does not have to identify this figure in relation to Case 5 and is under no obligation to do so.

Regulation 14 provides that the tenant, unless he notifies, will, in a later transaction, have his top value increased by the capital value of the rent he is paying. Thus the Commission would recover on the next charge. There have been three objections made. One is that it penalises the tenant for not notifying, whereas there are already penalties provided for not notifying in certain circumstances.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham said that it penalises the tenant for not notifying cases where he has no liability to notify. He will know that paragraph 5 of Regulation 14 gives complete discretion to direct that the levy be reduced in such a case, whether or not the failure to notify was due to inadvertence. It will be very rare for any liability for levy to arise on a seven-year tenancy. The third case, which I think the hon. Gentleman thought was unfair, was that the levy might be charged twice. Again, the Commission—I have stated this repeatedly—will always, where failure to notify has been due to inadvertence and levy has been collected, use its powers under 14(5) to relieve the tenant from any additional amount of levy he might otherwise have to pay.

Mr. Rippon

Will the Parliamentary Secretary understand that the difficulty for those advising clients is that he has just said that paragraph 5 of the Regulations gives a discretion to the Commission. He said that about Section 59, and Section 60, but how can one advise constituents, or others, when one does not have the practice notes as to how the Commission or the Minister will exercise that discretion? We will not have these until the autumn.

Mr. Skeffington

The practice notes will be issued as soon as they can, but I have made a statement on behalf of the Government as to how the Commission will act in this respect. I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would feel that this was an undertaking which would be honoured by the Commission, and knowing the Chairman of the Commission and its members, I am sure that this can be accepted.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about Case F Regulations and inquired why they were necessary. The short answer is that with a scheme of levy ones is creating new interests and the main Cases are A to E but there are three types which will not often arise, and which it was felt much easier to deal with in Regulations. There are three cases, the first of which is extensions and variations of leases, and extensions of tenancies.

The second case is wayleave, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) mentioned, and here there is an interest in land. It is not a lengthy interest and certainly not covered by Section 34. There is also the case where compensation is given for the laying of a sewer, which may be quite valuable and upon which levy can be paid. These are minor cases, but they will arise in some cases, and may be quite substantial.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), drew attention to the difference in treatment under the Waiver of Interest Regulations for buildings for outdoor sport—they are exempted of course under the Material Development Regulations—and those for indoor sport are not. Those for indoor sport are covered by the Betterment Levy (Waiver of Interest) Regulations.

The reason for the difference of treatment is that it is not difficult to define buildings for indoor sport. I am sure that no one would have wanted to make the Bill longer. In the same way, it is possible to define buildings for outdoor sport, yet it is perfectly proper for a distinction to be drawn in the case of an indoor sport, indoor tennis and badminton, as opposed to a bowling alley or a bingo hall. Bringing the indoor buildings within the scope of the Betterment Levy (Waiver of Interest) Regulations means that the Commission will have power to waive not only the levy but also the rate of interest, so that where there is a genuine need of that kind the activities will not be caught by levy.

The hon. Member also raised a Question of the Vesting Declaration (Prescribed Forms) Regulations and he asked an important question about the position of mortgagees when land which is mortgaged to them was vested in the Commission by a vesting declaration. I am glad to put on record that the position of a mortgagee is fully safeguarded. A vesting declaration vests his interest in the land in the Commission and the mortgagee is entitled to claim full compensation for it from the Commission. There is no question that he will lose his rights if the Commission pay out the mortgagor in ignorance of the mortgagee's debt. The mortgagor is still entitled to settlement of his debt. I may add that the Building Societies Association has been in correspondence about this and we have been able to satisfy all the queries that the Association has raised.

The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) spoke about the Rate of Interest Order and made the interesting suggestion, which one other hon. Member raised, that the rate of interest should be tied to the Bank Rate for the time being in force.

Mr. Lubbock

I spoke about this.

Mr. Skeffington

I thank the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for his interesting contribution, too. This matter has been considered but it was felt that there might be occasions when another specific rate of interest was desirable and that the rate should not, therefore, be tied absolutely to Bank Rate. While the Order was in draft, Bank Rate was reduced. Therefore, the new Order will be laid before the House very shortly. I gather from various speeches that we should either have altered the date of reduction of Bank Rate or deferred the printing of the Order for a few days. Whichever way we had acted, we would have been in trouble with somebody.

The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who always speaks with great experience in these matters, made a non-party speech, particularly in his approach to the Material Development and Planning Assumption Regulations. I was grateful for his kindly remarks that these Regulations could have been much worse and could have been much more narrowly drawn. I pointed out that a great many statues have to be taken into account unless other planning legislation can be put through Parliament simultaneously. That is not possible. I hope that in due course considerable progress may be made in this direction. The right hon. and learned Member suggested a comprehensive schedule in due course. It would not have been possible to do that at this stage, but my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the matter. We are grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interest and for the suggestion which he has made.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked about a watercress packing station. No doubt, the hon. Member will send me another of his letters about this, and I will answer it as soon as I can. The answer depends on the circumstances. If the watercress packing station were associated with a farm, I think that it would be exempt. If it were not associated with a farm it might not be exempt. Again, however, that is the kind of question which cannot be answered without more detail.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), whom I am glad to see with us, and his hon. Friends the Members for Crosby and for Poole (Mr. Murton) asked about the net yield. I must give the same answer as has been given previously. It is not possible to state the precise figures in this matter.

Mr. Rippon

Why not?

Mr. Skeffington

I was about to say. The only comparison that can be made is an estimate of what Capital Gains Tax would yield were there no levy. That is one of the calculations. The fact is that with Capital Gains Tax starting only in April, 1965, and the fact that the levy in any event will bite much more heavily in certain cases than Capital Gains Tax because losses will not be able to be offset against levy, as they can be against Capital Gains Tax, these and other factors mean that it is not possible to give the net yield at this time.

Mr. Rippon

Can the hon. Gentleman cite any precedent for an Order or a Finance Bill being brought before the House levying taxation on the subject at a heavy rate with no indication of the net yield to the Exchequer?

Mr. Skeffington

The right hon. and learned Member need not wax quite so eloquent. As we have said on a number of occasions, this is not taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should be out of order if I canvassed the whole argument about why the recovery of betterment value created by the community cannot possibly be a tax. I make the point in passing, to help the right hon. and learned Gentleman to appreciate the position. I have said that we have made calculations as to the yield in an average year, which we have given to the House, and, as more information becomes available, we will give that to the House.

Mr. Lubbock

I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot give the exact figure, but can he give us the lower and upper limits?

Mr. Skeffington

I should prefer not to do that at the present time, for the reasons I have already given. I say to the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington that, if it were possible to do this at this stage, it would be done. The fact is that there are so many imponderables in relation to the Capital Gains Tax that it is not possible to do that. We have given the total of the expected yield and I hope that that will be sufficient encouragement for the

House to vote overwhelmingly for the Order in due course.

I have tried to answer as many of the questions as I can. I will conclude on this note: I understand from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham said that, should the party opposite ever get a chance, it will repeal this Act and the Regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I very much hope that this is known outside the House, because it will be an excellent thing if the Conservative Party is seen again as the true friend of the speculators and the landed interests. Let it be known that, for the first time, we have devised, with the very greatest care to be fair and effective, a system which should not only provide land where it is needed at the right time in national plans, but also a fair and just system for the community to get back some of the value it has created. The Opposition are against us, but I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote overwhelmingly for these Orders.

Question put, That the Betterment Levy (Prescribed Rate) Order, 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 116.

Division No. 296.]	AYES	[11.44 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Alldritt, Walter	Dell, Edmund	Haseldine, Norman
Armstrong, Ernest	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Hattersley, Roy
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Dickens, James	Hazell, Bert
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Dobson, Ray	Heffer, Eric S.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Doig, Peter	Hooley, Frank
Barnes, Michael	Dunn, James A.	Horner, John
Barnett, Joel	Dunnett, Jack	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Baxter, William	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Howie, W.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Eadie, Alex	Hynd, John
Bidwell, Sydney	Edelman, Maurice	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Bishop, E. S.	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Booth, Albert	Faulds, Andrew	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Boston, Terence	Fernyhough, E.	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Boyden, James	Finch, Harold	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Bradley, Tom	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)	Ford, Ben	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Forrester, John	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Cant, R. B.	Fowler, Gerry	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Carmichael, Neil	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Lawton, George
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Freeson, Reginald	Leadbitter, Ted
Coe, Denis	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lee, John (Reading)
Coleman, Donald	Gardner, Tony	Lector, Miss Joan
Concannon, J. D.	Garrett, W. E.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Ginsburg, David	Lipton, Marcus
Crawshaw, Richard	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Lomas, Kenneth
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Luard, Evan
Dalyell, Tam	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Cavies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hannan, William	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Harper, Joseph	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
McBride, Neil	Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Macdonald, A. H.	Norwood, Christopher	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
McGuire, Michael	Oakes, Gordon	Skeffington, Arthur
McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Ogden, Eric	Small, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	O'Malley, Brian	Taverne, Dick
Mackie, John	Orme, Stanley	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Mackintosh, John P.	Oswald, Thomas	Tinn, James
Maclennan, Robert	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Tuck, Raphael
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Palmer, Arthur	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
MacPherson, Malcolm	Park, Trevor	Watkins, David (Consett)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)	Wellbeloved, James
Manuel, Archie	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mapp, Charles	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Whitlock, William
Marquand, David	Probert, Arthur	Wilkins, W. A.
Mason, Roy	Redhead, Edward	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mendelson, J. J.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mikardo, Ian	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Millan, Bruce	Rose, Paul	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.	Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Winnick, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)	Yates, Victor
Molloy, William	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Sheldon, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Newens, Stan	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Mr. Charles R. Morris and
		Mr. Alan Fitch.
NOES
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Grant, Anthony	Percival, Ian
Baker, W. H. K.	Grant-Ferris, R.	Pink, R. Bonner
Batsford, Brian	Grieve, Percy	Pounder, Rafton
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bell, Ronald	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Pym, Francis
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Gurden, Harold	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bessell, Peter	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Black, Sir Cyril	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Blaker, Peter	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hastings, Stephen	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hawkins, Paul	Scott, Nicholas
Brewis, John	Holland, Philip	Sharples, Richard
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hornby, Richard	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hunt, John	Smith, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Stainton, Keith
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Iremonger, T. L.	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Carlisle, Mark	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Stodart, Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Clegg, Walter	Jopling, Michael	Summers, Sir Spencer
Cooke, Robert	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Corfield, F. V.	Kirk, Peter	Temple, John M.
Crowder, F. P.	Kitson, Timothy	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Dance, James	Lubbock, Eric	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)	Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)	Vickers, Dame Joan
d'Avigrtor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Maginnis, John E.	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Marten, Neil	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Mawby, Ray	Weatherill, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Webster, David
Eden, Sir John	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Farr, John	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Fisher, Nigel	Monro, Hector	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fortescue, Tim	Murton, Oscar	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gibson-Watt, David	Neave, Airey	Wright, E.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Younger, Hn. George
Glover, Sir Douglas	Nott, John
Goodhart, Philip	Page, Graham (Crosby)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Goodhew, Victor	Pardoe, John	Mr. Jasper More and
Gower, Raymond	Peel, John	Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Material Development Regulations, 1967, dated 24th February, 1967 [copy laid before the House, 8th March], approved.

Betterment Levy (Minerals) Regulations, 1967, dated 3rd March, 1967 [copy laid before the House, 6th March], approved.

Case F General Regulations, 1967, dated 3rd March, 1967 [copy laid before the House, 6th March], approved.

Material Development (Scotland) Regulations, 1967, dated 27th February, 1967 [copy laid before the House, 8th March], approved.

Betterment Levy (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1967, dated 6th March, 1967 [copy laid before the House, 8th March], approved.

Case F General (Scotland) Regulations, 1967, dated 6th March, 1967 [copy laid before the House, 8th March], approved.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Land Commission (First Appointed Day) Order, 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 146), dated 8th February, 1967, be withdrawn.—[Mr. Rippon.]

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Farr

This Order, which, I understand, it is permissible to discuss after the termination of the business we have just had in hand, deals with one of the most objectionable instances of date fixing which this Government or any other Government have ever introduced, because on 6th April of this year we shall have a whole host of Regulations which will have great impact upon people in every walk of life and throughout the community. I really think that it would be deplorable if after only two hours or a little more of debate upon it this House were to pass this Order. We had an opportunity of discussing some of the other Orders yesterday and we have continued considering them tonight, but we have had only a very short time especially to deal with this item in particular.

It is interesting, for a moment to look upon all the serious effects which the implementation of the first appointed day, 6th April, will have. For instance, after 6th April it will be impossible for anybody to commence a new house or the extension of an existing house without full levy.

It is no use right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that they were not warned that 6th April was too early a date to introduce the Regulations. They were warned by hon. Members on both sides in both Houses of Parliament that if the first appointed day was stabilised at 6th April this year a tremendous number of people throughout the country would be unfairly affected by the onrush of events.

I and a number of other hon. Members have given examples to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of just what these effects will be. I am not try- ing to put the case for the big man, the big developer. I am trying to put it for the small person, the little householder, the woman or old-aged pensioner who owns a house with a small plot of land, who, unless they carry out or make a start on the development before 6th April, will, because of this wicked Act, have to pay full development levy of 40 per cent.

I have sent the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and so have my hon. Friends, details of pathetic examples where, simply because the professional people were unable to advise their clients that after 6th April a 40 per cent. levy, or even higher, would have to be paid on the development, gross cases of unfairness and inequity will arise.

I have drawn their attention to the fact, for instance, that unless a company wishing to extend its industrial premises does so before 6th April a 40 per cent. levy will be payable on the extension. I have sent several examples of cases of small factories in my constituency and outside which are playing a useful rôle in the export business and are desirous of rebuilding their premises in order to get more modem equipment. The tragedy is that unless the development is started before 6th April it will be subject to a 40 per cent. levy which in the case of small businesses, people with small means, small householders or owner-occupiers will be a very high rate of levy indeed.

I have sent the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues several particular examples which must be answered. I have sent him details of the tragic case of the village postmaster. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh; they may not be interested at all. But this postmaster is living in a tumbledown old house with the village post office attached. He wishes to rebuild his house on an adjoining site with new post office premises there, but he cannot get any satisfaction or answer from the Minister as to whether the development will be subject to levy or not and whether the 10 per cent, limit on extension of living accommodation will apply to the office accommodation also—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Hon. Members may only discuss on the Order when the appointed day shall be.

Mr. Farr

I quite understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order. Even if we can discuss only the appointed day, my hon. Friend has the right to be heard by the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Order is of very limited scope, and the only question in the debate is whether the appointed day should be 6th April or some other day.

Sir D. Glover

Further to the point of order. You completely missed my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is that my hon. Friend has the right to be heard in silence. An enormous row is going on on the benches opposite. I am listening with great interest to what I can hear of what my hon. Friend is saying, but I cannot hear because of that row.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have heard everything that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said so far.

Mr. Farr

I am trying to put some examples before the Minister and the House to show why the first appointed day should not be 6th April, and why it should be postponed. Hon. Members on this side—those on the other side do not care particularly—have tried to point out to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister the gross unfairness and injustice that will occur in a number of cases.

Hon. Members opposite tonight and yesterday morning seemed to indicate only that the big developers would get away with some of the worst consequences of the Bill, because they have the knowledge and can afford to pay advisers, who have told them that unless they start their work before 6th April they will be liable to levy. It is not such a travesty of the facts as the right hon. Gentleman would think to say that up and down the country earth works are being carried out in haste on big housing estates before 6th April to avoid payment of the levy. My point is that the big developers, the estate owners, know of the danger. But the little person, the householder, the small owner-occupier, the person living in a largish house with perhaps a little land around it, does not know the significance of the date, 6th April. He does not know it, simply because of the rush of events and the lack of suitable infor- mation. That is one reason why the first appointed day should be postponed. I could give a number of other examples, but in view of the late hour I do not intend to detain the House too long.

Many firms, particularly the small ones, will not be able to afford to pay the 40 or 50 per cent. development charge for any extension they make to their factory buildings which begins after 6th April and which is over 5,000 square feet in extent. If our factories cannot build new buildings without having to pay this disgraceful levy, if they cannot modernise their premises to rehouse their machinery and put in new machinery, how will this country remain industrially competitive and efficient?

For that and other reasons, which the Minister and his hon. Friend know well but try to keep quiet about, I ask them seriously to consider postponing once again the first appointed day to a date as late as possible this year, or even into next year. But, whenever it is, let us have fair play and make sure that the ordinary people know what it means when it comes upon them.

12.5 a.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has given many general reasons why the appointed day should be postponed and I want to give one particular reason. I know that to intervene at this hour after we have had an all-night sitting and when hon. Members are eager to go does not attract the sympathy either of one's hon. Friends or of hon. Members opposite, and I want the sympathy of hon. Members in my attempt to persuade the Government to postpone the appointed day. I want to save the Government from what could be an act of ill faith if they do not find a way of dealing with the problem which arises in the City of Peterborough, and one way of dealing with it would be by postponing the appointed day.

The Government requested the City of Peterborough to be a good neighbour and to accept overspill from London. To do that, Peterborough was asked to implement the new towns legislation, which was an important step for an ancient city. The City of Peterborough, being a good neighbour, accepted this request from the Government to help overcome a national problem of London overspill. This meant that they had to appoint a consultant to prepare a blue print for the plan to fit in with the wishes of the central Government.

The result was that when local people put in their plans for their own separate development, the local council had to reply that they could not accept these developments because they might cut across the blue print being prepared by the consultant to meet the wishes of the central Government. The Land Commission legislation came on the scene at that stage and the result was that developers who would normally have had their development approved and made a start with it, thus avoiding the 40 per cent. levy charged under the Land Commission, were prevented from doing so. That was because they had been good neighbours, and had helped to deal with London overspill. They had lost the one chance which was given to all other towns, cities and villages of having their normal development approved, making a start on it and avoiding the levy. As a result, developers in Peterborough, having lost that chance, will face a 40 per cent. levy.

I suggest that the Government should postpone the appointed day until such time as they can look into the details of this case. I am sure that the Government do not wish to penalise the city for carrying out their wishes in helping to meet national policy.

I can tell the hon. Member, as I could not tell him the other day, that both the city council and the county council recognise the force of the case which I have made and recognise that

promises are not being kept which were made to them when they first took on the onerous task of helping London's overspill if some of their citizens are put in an invidious position—a worse position than that of any other town in the country. Having asked their ratepayers to accept the scheme to deal with London overspill, they feel that they must press this matter on the Government and insist on their share in exemption under the Bill, otherwise a special and unfair penalty would be put on Peterborough. I ask the Government to delay the appointed day, which is one way in which they could try to deal with the problem.

Section 63 gives the Minister power to put right what I am describing. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not certain whether it would enable him to do so, however. I ask him, therefore, to postpone the operation of the Bill until he can find some way of keep-in the promise which was implied by the Leader of the House when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government and asked Peterborough to take on this good-neighbour task, at some disadvantage to itself, by helping with London's overspill.

If we can postpone the appointed day and have an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he will look with sympathy at what I am putting to him, I am certain that he will sleep much better in his bed when eventually some of the other aspects of this Order are affecting people in this country.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 168.

Division No. 297.]	AYES	[12.10 a.m.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Gurden, Harold
Baker, W. H. K.	Dance, James	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Batsford, Brian	Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Bell, Ronald	Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Hastings, Stephen
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Hawkins, Paul
Bessell, Peter	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Holland, Philip
Black, Sir Cyril	Eden, Sir John	Hornby, Richard
Blaker, Peter	Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Hunt, John
Bossom, Sir Clive	Farr, John	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Fisher, Nigel	Iremonger, T. L.
Brewis, John	Fortescue, Tim	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Gibson-Watt, David	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Jopling, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)	Glover, Sir Douglas	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Goodhart, Philip	Kirk, Peter
Carlisle, Mark	Goodhew, Victor	Kitson, Timothy
Chichester-Clark, R.	Gower, Raymond	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Clegg, Walter	Grant-Ferris, R.	Lubbock, Eric
Cooke, Robert	Grieve, Percy	Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)
Corfield, F. V.	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Maginnis, John E.
Crowder, F. P.	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Marten, Neil
Mawby, Ray	Pym, Francis	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey	Vickers, Dame Joan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Russell, Sir Ronald	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Monro, Hector	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Weatherill, Bernard
More, Jasper	Scott, Nicholas	Webster, David
Murton, Oscar	Sharples, Richard	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Neave, Airey	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Smith, John	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Nott, John	Stainton, Keith	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Page, Graham (Crosby)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Pardoe, John	Stodart, Anthony	Wright, E.
Peel, John	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)	Younger, Hn. George
Percival, Ian	Summers, Sir Spencer
Pink, R. Bonner	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pounder, Rafton	Temple, John M.	Mr. Anthony Grant and
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.	Mr. Reginald Eyre.
NOES
Albu, Austen	Gardner, Tony	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Alldritt, Walter	Ginsburg, David	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Molloy, William
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Barnett, Joel	Hannan, William	Newens, Stan
Baxter, William	Harper, Joseph	Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Norwood, Christopher
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Haseldine, Norman	Oakes, Gordon
Bidwell, Sydney	Hattersley, Roy	Ogden, Eric
Bishop, E. S.	Hazell, Bert	O'Malley, Brian
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Heffer, Eric S.	Orme, Stanley
Booth Albert	Hooley, Frank	Oswald, Thomas
Boston, Terence	Horner, John	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Boyden, James	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Howie, W.	Palmer, Arthur
Bradley, Tom	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Park, Trevor
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hynd, John	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Probert, Arthur
Cant, R. B.	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Redhead, Edward
Carmichael, Neil	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Coe, Denis	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)	Rose, Paul
Coleman, Donald	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Concannon, J. D.	Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Crawshaw, Richard	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dalyell, Tam	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Sheldon, Robert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Lawson, George	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Leadbitter, Ted	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lee, John (Reading)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dell, Edmund	Lestor, Miss Joan	Skeffington, Arthur
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Small, William
Dickens, James	Lipton, Marcus	Taverne, Dick
Dobson, Ray	Luard, Evan	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Dunn, James A.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Tinn, James
Dunnett, Jack	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Tuck, Raphael
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	McBride, Neil	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Eadie, Alex	Macdonald, A. H.	Watkins, David (Consett)
Edelman, Maurice	McGuire, Michael	Wellbeloved, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Whitlock, William
Faulds, Andrew	Mackie, John	Wilkins, W. A.
Fernyhough, E.	Mackintosh, John P.	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Finch, Harold	Maclennan, Robert	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Winnick, David
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Ford, Ben	Manuel, Archie	Yates, Victor
Forrester, John	Marquand, David
Fowler, Gerry	Mason, Roy	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mendelson, J. J.	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Freeson, Reginald	Mikardo, Ian	Mr. Charles R. Morris.
Galpern, Sir Myer	Millan, Bruce

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.