§ NEW PROVISION AS TO ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.
§ 10.11 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Nial MacDermot)I beg to move Amendment 23, in page 11, line 22, at end insert:
(3) Where an enforcement notice relates to a breach of planning control consisting in—it may be served only within the period of four years from the date of the breach.
- (a) the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land; or
- (b) the failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land; or
- (c) the making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling-house,
Will it be convenient to discuss with this, Mr. Speaker, the four Amendments to the Amendment?
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain whether you have selected all the Amendments to the Minister's Amendment and, if so, whether you would permit a Division on any of them. We would wish to divide on the fourth Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have not selected formally any of the four Amendments which are to be taken with this particular Amendment, but he has made representations to me and I am willing to allow a Division on the Amendment which he chooses, which will be the fourth, I understand.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)On a point of order. Is it in the best interests of the House that the news is running round that the Government have 664 decided to keep the House until five o'clock in the morning to discuss these matters? I do not feel that it is in the best interests of the House that this sort of thing should happen.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order for me.
§ Mr. MacDermotMay I hasten to assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government have decided nothing of the sort. We shall be delighted to complete this business by midnight, if we have the co-operation of the House. It may take a little longer.
§ Mr. MacDermotI hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) say that it is for the Opposition to decide how long they wish to debate these matters, and I quite accept that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill and an Amendment.
§ Mr. MacDermot rose—
§ Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. MacDermotNo, we want to make progress.
The Amendment is to meet an undertaking given in Committee to confine the abolition of the four-year rule on enforcement notices to those cases in which the mischief is established. I undertook to restore the four-year rule in the case of enforcement notices relating to any breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out of building or any other operations on land for a change to residential use.
10.15 p.m.
One slight qualification has been introduced to which attention is called in the first of the Opposition Amendments, and that is that paragraph (c) refers to a change of use to use as a single dwelling house. The reason for this is that changes of use to multi-occupation can have undesirable social as well as planning consequences. They come within the general mischief in that they are often difficult for the planning authority to 665 detect and I understand that there have in practice, been cases of this kind of development in which the four-year rule has been a barrier, preventing the planning authorities from exercising the control which is patently desirable on social as well as planning grounds. This is the sort of abuse which can lead to an area's deterioration into a slum or near slum and I hope that the House will agree that this is a proper limitation.
The second Amendment would include in the kinds of unauthorised development to which the four-year rule would continue to apply a change to a use not inconsistent with the use of that building as noted in the valuation list. It is difficult to see what the wording means, but it seems to refer to a minor change of use, which should be treated more leniently than a material change. If so, that is adequately covered by the Use Classes Order, but perhaps we can hear something about that. In addition, entries in the valuation list can become out of date between valuations and might not reflect current use.
The third Amendment aims to spell out what is meant by the words "date of the breach" and I must advise the House that it is unnecessary. There is no similar definition in Section 45 of the 1962 Act, which contains the four-year rule, and it has long been established that the four years run from the date of the contravention.
We would oppose the last Amendment, on which we have been told the Opposition's intention. The whole purpose of this abolition of the four-year rule would be largely defeated if we substituted for it a six-year rule.
§ Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)First of all I should like to thank the Minister for the concessions he has made in the sense that he has tried to meet some of the objections which were made to the Bill, objections which were fully debated in the Standing Committee. He has met objections which he had himself considered as existing, although at the time of the Standing Committee he had not yet put them into legislative form. I think it is fair to say that the Minister from the very outset of the debate on this problem said that this presented
one of the more difficult problems in the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March. 1968; c. 354.]666 Therefore, the House will forgive me if I take a little time to outline the problem and indicate the views held by this side of the House on this problem.The principal Planning Act provides that if an enforcement notice is served by a local planning authority in respect of a breach of the development plan, because unauthorised development or a change of use has taken place, that enforcement notice cannot be effective if served after a four-year period. This follows what is an underlying principle in our legal system—and, indeed, I would venture to say, all legal systems— namely, that there must be a degree of stability and finality in the law, and that when a de facto situation becomes established it should not remain into infinity at risk of being upset.
Therefore, we have in our law of contract a rule that if a claim of breach of a contract is not made within six years the person complaining of that breach has lost all remedy at law; the situation has existed for a period of time and the law deems that after that period of time has expired there must be finality to the question. We have similar provisions in our law of torts. When someone complains that he has suffered a civil injury at the hands of another then there must be finality in that situation and the person alleged to have committed the injury should not be at risk into infinity. The same principle is extended into our law on property. A man can come and squat on somebody else's land and enjoy it for 12 years and after that he will be deemed to be the owner; he will have acquired the ownership by adverse possession. Also in law rights of way, rights of light, rights to air can be acquired over other people's property if they have been enjoyed for a period of 20 years without complaint or legal process having been brought. It is considered that there must be finality at some point in time.
This general principle which is found in all aspects of our legal system was brought into town planning procedures also, and it is for that reason that we have the four-year rule whereby if somebody develops property or changes the user of property contrary to the development plan then the local authority has three years in which to upset that situation. If it did not exercise its rights to 667 serve an enforcement notice then there was finality and the individual could continue to enjoy his development or his change of use without any risk at all at law. We feel that this is something which should continue in our system of law in town planning matters.
The Minister, in the Standing Committee, said that there were two factors why he did not wish this to be so. The first factor was that of concealment; the second was that which he called intensification. On concealment he gave the example of someone converting a room in a house into an office—behind net curtains, to use his own phrase. He felt that it would be wrong, where this happened, for the local authority to be debarred after a period of four years from taking any action.
On intensification, he gave the example where someone could leave one or two items of scrap metal lying in a field, say that that gave the right to use the field as a dumping ground and, after the four years had expired, to suddenly turn it into a scrap metal yard. It was felt in Standing Committee that both those matters were over-exaggerated. In any case, one must always weigh up the factors posited by the Minister against the other principle—the desirability of finality—and a judgment must be exercised as to which is the most important.
On concealment, there are already in our legal system principles that the Minister could invoke and could incorporated into the planning law. He could say that the four-year period of limitation should not run if there has been concealment, if there has been an element of fraud, and that the period should run only from the time when the local authority actually knew of the breach or ought to have known of it. This is something well established in our legal system, and particularly in the law of tort.
On the question of intensification, here again the Minister could simply have dealt with the matter on the de minimis principle—by saying that where there is a lump or two of iron in a field, then that is not deemed to change the user, and that a change takes place only when there is a substantial use contrary to the established existing use, and this would have met the question of intensification.
668 These are solutions to which the Minister has apparently not directed his mind. I concede that this would lead to greater complications from the point of view of Parliamentary drafting in that longer Clauses would be needed, but one would have thought that to exclude concealment and intensification along the lines I have proposed would have been a far better way than to abolish, virtually in its entirity, the concept that there must be a statutory limit beyond which rights cannot be infringed or rights that have been assumed cannot be taken away.
It is for this reason that our fourth Amendment to the Government Amendment proposes that a six-year period of limitation should apply to each and every case not covered by the Minister's Amendments. We are adopting the period that the law recognises for breach of contract and most civil injuries in the realm of the law of tort. This period has been found to be most convenient and equitable and there is no reason why it should not be incorporated in the Bill.
If finality of this kind is not incorporated, what are the likely consequences? There is the danger that local planning authorities will not do their work properly. They will not be as diligent as they might be to discover changes of uses and developments which have taken place in breach of their plan. If there is no time limit on them, they might be content to let a situation ride without doing anything about it until, perhaps, questions of compulsory purchase and compensation arise, and then decide to use this rule to avoid paying a higher degree of compensation. If they used it for that purpose, to allow it to be permissive for change of user and to exercise it only when questions of compensation arose would be inequitable. This could be a danger into which the Minister might lead us.
10.30 p.m.
Another question arising if there is no finality relates to transactions in land where the change of user or a development has taken place in contravention of a development plan. This was brought out in Committee. Conveyancing difficulties were raised with the Minister, but he intended to discount them. I have a great regard for the Minister of State. When he was practising as a distinguished member of the Bar, I valued his opinions 669 and advice very much, but on property matters he might listen to some hon. Members on this side of the House as perhaps we are a little more familinar with the day to day problems which arise.
The Minister said that as far as he saw the problem it was a transitional one. He said:
The reference to a date in 1963 is made so that anyone who has achieved protection by four-year user will continue to enjoy it.He said that the problem will arise only where a change has taken place after December, 1963. I invite him to look at the situation in 15 or 20 years' time, assuming that this legislation in its present form goes on to and remains on the Statute Book.In 15 or 20 years' time, how can a purchaser of property be satisfied that the four-year period expired before 21st Dec-cember, 1963, and not on the 22nd or 23rd December, 1963? Is he to be satisfied with a statutory declaration? If so, who is to make to make the statutory declaration in 15 or 20 years' time? The property may have changed hands several times. Deaths may have taken place. It would be virtually impossible in very many cases for a practising solicitor to satisfy himself that the change had been saved by the four-year rule prior to December, 1963.
What is more, the burden of proof as between the owner of the land and the local planning authority will be on the person seeking to establish the user. Practitioners will find this problem wellnigh insurmountable. I think the experience will be that further legislation will be required to correct the anomalies which are bound to arise if the Minister remains set on his present course. For this reason I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support, if necessary in the Division Lobby, the Amendment to the Government Amendment concerning the establishment of the six-year rule.
Paragraph (a) of the Minister's Amendment refers to
the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations".I assume that this is designed to meet the comment of the Minister when he said in Committee:It is not that people secretly put up a building. One can see a building when it is 670 put up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March, 1968, c. 355.]For that reason, the Minister has presumably decided that a local authority should know that a building is going up and there should not be uncertainty into infinity: the local planning authority should be required to act within a given period.If that is the Minister's reason, why as long as four years? In a case where a building is going up, the local authority should be required to act more expeditiously than that. A six-month period or a 12-month period would be appropriate.
In paragraph (b) the Minister wishes to retain the four-year period where there has been a
failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land".I again assume that the Minister's reason is that where a local planning authority has granted planning permission subject to conditions and a development takes place under that permission, the planning officers of the authority should be alive to see that the development is taking place in conformity with the permission that has been granted—in other words, that there should be some inspection whilst the development is taking place or immediately it is completed so that the authority can be satisfied that all has been done as it should have been done. If so, again why wait for as long as four years before serving an enforcement notice? This argues for a six-months or a 12-months notice, not a four-year one. I ask the Minister to reconsider his Amendment.Paragraph (c) says:
that making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling-house.This is subject to our Amendment that "single dwelling-house" should be altered to "residential use". We seek to do this for a number of reasons. First, this is not the language that the Minister used in Committee: he did not speak of a single dwelling-house. He said:I should be content to leave it also for a very large class of change of use, namely, change of use to residential user. There are 671 two reasons: first, obviously there cannot be concealment; secondly, of its nature it is not likely to be offensive or to lead to complaint." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March, 1968; c. 357.]Therefore, the Minister has not followed his undertaking.There is no such class use in the Planning Acts as a single dwelling-house. The class use is residential use. We therefore fault the Minister for trying to create a novel class use without legislating in the appropriate manner by making an amendment to the appropriate legislation. For this reason, we contend that the Government Amendment may well be bad.
I return to the reasons the Minister gave in Committee for being prepared to permit residential use or, for that matter, a single dwelling-house. He said that he had no objection to the four-year rule remaining because obviously there could not be concealment. Why must there be more or less concealment for residential use than for single occupation? Is the Minister suggesting that there can be more concealment for multi-occupation than for single occupation?
Mr. MacDennotI should have thought that it is very clear that if a building is used for residential purposes it is fairly readily observable, but one does not know how many people are living there. Experience has shown that it has not been possible to control what have been breaches of existing planning control of this kind owing to the provisions of the four-year rule.
§ Mr. RossiI concede at once that multi-occupation, particularly in our running twilight areas, is a great social evil which must be cured, but I suggest that it must be cured by redevelopment plans by housing associations or local authorities. The right way to deal with that problem would be to strengthen the local authorities' powers under the Housing Acts. The Minister is creating bad law, so far as a Statute can do that. He is departing from existing class use, and I stress that he is also departing from his undertaking to us. This is a rather serious matter. Multi-occupation may be treated in other ways under other legislation. I believe that the recent White Paper has something to say 672 about problems of multi-occupation and overcrowding.
I ask that Minister to consider the case of a shop with store rooms over it, all housed in one building. If the shopkeeper decides to change the user of part of the premises for residential accommodation for one or two members of his staff, he will be in breach of this provision. He will not be protected by the four-year rule. They are housed within one building, he is creating residential accommodation, and yet he is not protected by it. I ask the Minister to consider the further ramifications that the restriction he has put on his undertaknig might well have.
The Minister asked for an explanation of our second Amendment. If a local authority has noted in its rating lists a use class for a property its planning committee should be deemed to know what the user is, and therefore should not be entitled to serve an enforcement notice. It would be real lethargy on the part of a planning authority if it was not aware for a period of more than four years of what was in its own rating lists.
Our third Amendment is to give some certainty as to the date from which the breach of the four-year period shall be deemed to run. By their very nature, these breaches are continuing matters, and some point of time must be given when the breach shall be deemed to start. We suggest the commencement of the operations, the failure or the change.
For those reasons, I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole matter.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsI hope that the Minister will look at our fourth Amendment again. This should not be left just as an argument between lawyers. There are practical considerations here. There should be a period. I think that six years is too long. Obviously my hon. and right hon. Friends had a compromise figure in mind in order to get some support from the Government. Three or four years would perhaps be more practical and fair. [Interruption.] Except for the cases outlined in the Government's Amendment, there will be no period at all.
Take the case of an hotel where there is some difference of view between the 673 planning authority and the owners. Suppose that the owners want to turn the basement of the hotel into a sauna bath and that it is suggested that use of the basement for a sauna bath may be a change of user for which they should get permission. The owners may argue that the installation of a new bath is not a change of user. A sauna bath has not been defined as being any different from an ordinary bath. There is, therefore, a difference of view as to whether there is a change of user which should carry planning permission.
I know of cases in which the matter is left in abeyance. A local planning authority, having searched its books, cannot see that it would at the moment be in order in pursuing its insistence that planning permission be obtained on the basis that there has been a change of user of the basement. But it has not conceded that it is in order. If it does not pursue the point and the matter is left in abeyance, it could well be that, under some ruling which may be made that sauna baths should be recognised within the planning vocabulary, a sauna bath would be deemed to be a change of user.
I give that as an example because it is one which I have in mind, but no doubt similar anomalies and borderline cases exist throughout the country. I think that it is e very sound argument in support of the case that a period should be laid down after which owners know they are safe. That would be fair and practical.
§ Mr. MacDermotThe hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) thought that the Government Amendment as it stood would turn a situation of what he described as uncertainty into infinity. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) took up the same point in the example which he gave of the sauna bath in an hotel. I entirely accept the need for machinery for establishing certainty in such cases, and it would be intolerable if people were left in a situation of uncertainty. I accept the fairness of what he said about the importance of looking at the conveyancing aspect. In Committee, I made it plain that I had no pretensions to conveyancing knowledge, but I was alive to the serious practical problems of the matter.
674 We will come later to Amendment 212 on the Order Paper, dealing with this aspect, which has been promoted by the Law Society. I have already given an undertaking that we must cover the point, and there must be an adequate procedure. If we are to have this open-ended enforcement procedure, a person who may be in doubt as to whether or not he is covered must be able to apply to the planning authority and get certification. This will arise particularly when a person conveys property. He wants to be sure he is giving a good title, the purchaser wants to be sure of getting a good title, and there must be certification procedure. So the Amendments are to be read together.
I do not want to comment on suggestions which are not the subject of the Amendment, or alternative words, but I would like to comment on a general attitude which has been described suggesting that planning authorities were not as diligent as they ought to be in detecting breaches of planning control. It's asked, "Why wait for four years?" I reject the idea however that we should turn planning authorities into a police force on planning. Planning officers are very busy men, many of them are overworked, and they have very important planning functions to perform. It is not for them to go chasing around or, as I said in Committee, "riding round on bicycles" trying to find out whether there have been breaches in planning control. That is not their function.
We want an effective system to see that planning control is observed, and is not abused and evaded by people who just are law-breakers. We do not think it right to introduce the machinery of the criminal law in order to deal with the situation; no one is suggesting that. But they are gaining a benefit by development without authority. We need an effective deterrent, and the existing four-year rule with its relatively narrow field of changes of use other than changes of use to residential use has opened up abuses which are the subject of very strong complaints from planning authorities. I have had representations from planning authorities in various parts of the country who are anxious to see this provision go through. They accept the limitations imposed on it in the Amendment.
675 I reject the idea that my precise wording in what I said when I threw out a suggestion in Committee should be taken as an undertaking to be transferred into the wording of a Statute, and I suggest that my Amendment is fully within the spirit of what I have said. I have pointed out the social evil which will result. It is not something new. I am not inventing the idea of a single dwelling-house as a separate class. Section 12(3) of the 1962 Act provides:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section—(a) the use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building previously used as a single dwellinghouse involves a material change in the use of the building and of each part thereof which is so used";It already is a breach of planning control to convert from a single dwelling-house to a multiple dwelling-house, and for the social reasons I have outlined I suggest, that it would be wise not to subject such a breach to the constraint of the four-year rule. For these reasons I would advise the House to reject the Amendments.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Hexham)While we understand that the Minister of State speaking in Committee may from time to time necessarily use language a little loosely, we do feel that there has been a breach of a clear understanding that when he talked about residential use
§ he meant residential use in the sense in which we are accustomed to use it in planning matters.
§ Dealing with the limitation period, we would agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said on the need to ensure that law-breaking is not encouraged, and no great burdens are placed upon local planning officers in relation to enforcement action. At the same time, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has urged so cogently, we feel that something more needs to be done than has been suggested so far, to ensure finality. We welcome the Minister of State's undertakings that the matter will be looked at again later in these proceedings and perhaps in another place.
§
Therefore, I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert:
'and in all other cases it may be served only within the period of six years from the date of the breach'.
§ We feel that it would be much more simple and convenient if we were clear about this and established a six-year period for all these matters.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 177.
677| Division No. 158.] | AYES | [10.55 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Fortescue, Tim | Maddan, Martin |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Faster, Sir John | Maginnts, John E. |
| Astor, John | Gibson-Watt, David | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Awdry, Daniel | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Goodhew, Victor | Mills, Peter (Torrington) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Gower, Raymond | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) | Grant, Anthony | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Grant-Ferris, R. | Monro, Hector |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Gresham Cooke, R. | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Brewis, John | Grieve, Percy | More, Jasper |
| Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Murton, Oscar |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M) | Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) | Nicholls, Sir Harmar |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Hawkins, Paul | Nott, John |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Clegg, Walter | Higgins, Terence L. | Percival, Ian |
| Cooke, Robert | Hiley, Joseph | Peyton, John |
| Corfield, F. V. | Hill, J. E. B. | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Holland, Philip | Pounder, Rafton |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hordern, Peter | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Dance, James | Hunt, John | Prior, J. M. L. |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Iremonger, T. L. | Pym, Francis |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Doughty, Charles | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Eden, Sir John | Kirk, Peter | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Elliott,n.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Kitson, Timothy | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Lane, David | Royle, Anthony |
| Farr, John | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Fisher, Nigel | MacArthur, Ian | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | McMaster, Stanley | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Silvester. Frederick | Wall, Patrick | Worsley, Marcut |
| Sinclair, Sir George | Walters, Dennis | Wright, Esmond |
| Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'tnington) | Ward, Dame Irene | Wylie, N. R. |
| Smith, John (London & W'minster) | Weatherill, Bernard | |
| Speed, Keith | Webster, David | |
| Stainton, Keith | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William | |
| Taylor, Frank (Moss side) | Williams, Donald (Dudley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Temple, John M. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) | Mr. Reginald Eyre and |
| Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick | Mr. Humphrey Atkins. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Gourlay, Harry | Orbach, Maurice |
| Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Orme, Stanley |
| Archer, Peter | Gregory, Arnold | Oswald, Thomas |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Griffiths, David (Rorher Valley) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Barnett, Joel | Hamling, William | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Baxter, William | Harman, William | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Beaney, Alan | Harper, Joseph | pentland, Norman |
| Benee, Cyril | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Haseldine, Norman | Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Hazell, Bert | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Blackburn, F. | Heffer, Eric S. | Probert, Arthur |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Horner, John | Rees, Merlyn |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Booth, Albert | Howie, W. | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Hoy, James | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Rose, Paul |
| Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) | Hunter, Adam | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) |
| Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Sheldon, Robert |
| Brown, R. W (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Janner, Sir Barnett | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Buchan, Norman | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Cant, R. B. | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Skcffington, Arthur |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Slater, Joseph |
| Chapman, Donald | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Small William |
| Coe, Denis | Lawson, George | Snow, Julian |
| Coleman, Donald | Leadbitter, Ted | Spriggs Leslie |
| Concannon, J D. | Lee, John (Reading) | Steel, David(Roxburgh) |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Taverne Dick |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Loughlin, Charles | Tinn, James |
| Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.) | Lubbock, Eric | Urwi'n, T. W. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Varley Eric G |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | McBride, Neil | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Delargy, Hugh | MacColl, James | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Dempsey, James | MacDermot, Niall | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| Dewar, Donald | Macdonald, A. H. | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | McGuire, Michael | Wallace George |
| Dickens, James | Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen) | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Doig, Peter | Mackintosh, John P. | Watkins Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Dunnett, Jack | McNamara, J. Kevin | Weitzman, David |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | MacPherson, Malcolm | Wellbeloved James |
| Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Whitaker Ben |
| Eadie, Alex | Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) | White, Mrs. Eriene |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Mapp, Charles | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Ellis, John | Marks, Kenneth | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| English, Michael | Marquand, David | Williams Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Ennals, David | Mendelson, J. J. | Williams, Rt. Hn. George |
| Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Millan, Bruce | Winsatnley Dr. M.P. |
| Faulds, Andrew | MilIer, Dr. M. S. | Woodburn, Rt. Hn.A. |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Woof Robert |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Yates, Victor |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Moyle, Roland | |
| Ford, Ben | Murray, Albert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Forrester, John | Neal, Harold | Mr. John McCann and |
| Freeson, Reginald | Newens, Stan | Mr. Alan Fitch. |
| Gardner, Tony | Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phitip(Derby,S.) | |
| Garrert, W. E. | O'Malley, Brian |
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.