§ Mr. Gordon CampbellI beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 23, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this we are to take Amendment No. 21, in page 24, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
§ Mr. CampbellWe now reach Part III of the Bill. This is the part in which the Government seek to enact legislation now which at some future time would completely alter the system of appeals in Scotland. It would be changed to a system similar to, if not exactly the same as, that in England and Wales. A corps of inspectors would come into existence in Scotland and would investigate appeals and be able to take certain decisions. The Government originally agreed that this part of the Bill should be left in suspense. In Committee, they also added a provision whereby it could be brought in at some future date only after an Order had been discussed in the House, and that was an improvement.
Nevertheless, we do not see why it is necessary to enact these Clauses. The present appeals system in Scotland can cope with all the likely appeals and a new corps of inspectors is not necessary. The Government appeared to agree that the number of appeals in recent years did not justify the change and based their case on the assumption of a great increase in future. In the three years from 1965 to 1967—the Government made these figures available but could not tell us the figure for 1968, although perhaps 1592 they can tonight—both the number of appeals and the number of resultant inquiries have diminished. Therefore, the present trend does not justify the proposed change.
The Minister justified this change by suggesting that there would be a great increase in industrial expansion, which would give rise to a large number of appeals, compared with the present numbers. Although industrial activity has been described as stagnant in Scotland, the Government would not suggest that it has been diminishing, yet the number of appeals has diminished. The Amendments propose that the new procedure should at least not apply to appeals under Section 14 of the 1947 Act. This is an important category of planning decisions, applications for planning permission and approvals under development orders. We hope that the Government will at least exempt this category.
We should have preferred the Clause and all Part III to disappear completely. We do not think that this legislation is necessary: there is no prospect of it ever being needed. At least the Secretary of State should remove this area from the new procedure. This would bring in the right of appeal to the Secretary of State as a third party, as we discussed on previous Amendments. It is a question not of centralisation but of the Secretary of State acting as a third party, an independent person taking the final decision.
If the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is going to pursue his arguments about devolution and centralisation, I will make it clear again that the Secretary of State does this at present as a third party. We would not mind if it were an independent tribunal. We would still hope that that procedure would continue and that there would be no necessity for a completely new system, as provided for in this part of the Bill, with a corps of inspectors.
We recognise that this has been necessary in England and Wales, where there are thousands of cases a year, but, in each of the three years I mentioned, the number of cases in Scotland was between 300 and 400 and a number of inquiries between 100 and 200. These have been, and can be in future, dealt with adequately by the Scottish system of appeal 1593 to the Secretary of State, with a reporter being appointed to look into cases when necessary.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will consider this point. They made a move when the Bill was considered in another place. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, indicated that the Government would not bring in this proposal and it was postponed indefinitely. Later, in Committee, the Minister introduced the provision for the affirmative Resolution, which was an improvement; it gives this House a chance to consider the matter again. I hope that the Government will go further and will say that they will either exempt the important planning decisions covered by our Amendments or will never bring in this part of the Bill. That would be best for Scotland.
§ Mr. Clark HutchisonWhat body or local authority in Scotland has asked for this change? I have never had an answer to this question. If a system is working adequately and is supported by the public, the onus is on the Government to show the necessity for a change. For that reason, I support the Amendment. The Minister should give the Scottish nation a better reason than he has done for the introduction of this change. Is it not a very bad principle to put in a Bill a provision which may be operated in future, if not at present? We should not legislate in that way.
§ Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettleston)I intervene for the first time in the debates on the Bill. I was not a member of the Committee.
This proposal disturbs me very much. There may be very good reasons why the system, which is well established, accepted and respected, should not be retained, even though it is not proposed to abolish it in the immediate future. Two cases come to my mind which I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider and to say how they would be dealt with if this proposal were implemented.
It was reported in the Press the other day that a company in Lanarkshire had successfully applied for planning permission for some housing development. It was announced that at least two other 1594 applicants had made similar applications, but that they had been turned down. I wonder why the two earlier applications were refused and the third was granted. There was an outburst by the people who were refused permission. In cases like this an inquiry is essential, with a reporter looking into the circumstances, so that it may be ascertained what led the planning committee to change its mind in a relatively short time.
I can give several instances of what has happened in Glasgow in the search for licensed premises. Development applications have been made by individuals A and B and turned down, but, lo and behold, individual C makes an application and it is granted. These are aspects of local government work that create disturbance in the minds of the electorate, but they are happy and satisfied that there exists this method of inquiry and reporting to the Secretary of State.
10.15 p.m.
Glasgow Corporation, the largest planning authority in Scotland, does not wish this change. The corporation has been urging the members of Parliament for Glasgow to resist the proposal, and the opinion of bodies such as Glasgow Corporation should be considered.
No sufficient reason is being adduced for the change; it is change for the sake of change. Many proposals which have been either used or not used in the past have done no harm. Why should there be lengthy debates for the sake of tidying things up? If they do no harm, the provisions should be left as they are. It may be that there will one day be a great necessity to invoke them.
I accept the argument that we are being dragged by the coat tail of English legislation. As has been shown by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) that we in Scotland are not faced with the problem that confronts England, and I do not anticipate, even with the greatest possible developments that we all wish to see in Scotland, that the numbers of appeals will seriously increase. But there is this inbuilt safeguard which the citizens of Glasgow wish to retain, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give further thought to the matter.
§ Mr. GalbraithI support what has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). He has a unique experience of Glasgow and of the way in which local government works. Just to show that I have not made up out of my head what I am saying, I will read an extract from what Glasgow Corporation has to say about these proposals:
This is a clear case of blanket application to Scotland of provisions designed to remedy chaotic conditions in England, where the number of appeals (around 10,000 per year) compares with Scotland's approximate 200. The number of appeals might well increase"—That is what the Minister has been saying—… but there is no indication that it will do so to such an extent as to justify the proposed changes.It is accepted that, under these proposals, a decision is likely to be made at an earlier date but"—this is the important point—… the Corporation would still prefer the Secretary of State to be the final arbiter.The Corporation does not say why, but I strongly suspect it is as the hon. Member for Shettleston said, that, unless the Secretary of State is the final arbiter, there will be no feeling of confidence that justice is being done, and I hope even at this late stage that the Government will think again.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonIn fairness to the Government's position, it should be recognised that we have put down the Amendment which is now part of the Bill, and which is not involved on the Report stage, which brings into action Part III only on an affirmative Resolution. I have readily admitted that in present circumstances there is no need for Part III, and if my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen are right that the circumstances will never change and the figures will remain as they are, Part III could never be justified on an affirmative Resolution by any Minister standing at this Box.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said in the last debate that he could not always judge the circumstances in which he might answer a direct question about the introduction of a repeal in relation to something else. He wants to know the circumstances obtaining at the time, 1596 and that is quite fair. But it is only prudent to take into account that those who say that such a thing will not happen may be wrong. The Minister may be obliged to bring forward an affirmative Resolution at a particular moment to deal with a situation which has changed beyond his belief and understanding.
If it could be argued that in the present circumstances in England this system is a bad one and if I were convinced of that, I would readily admit that we should amend Part III. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was skilful in his argument to point out that he was not objecting to the usefulness of Part III in the situation in which it was applied in England. That is exactly the position of the Secretary of State. We do not want to apply the provision unless we have a similar situation as that which obtains in England.
It would be foolish for any hon. Member to assert that there will definitely be such a situation in Scotland, just as it would be foolish to assert that such a situation will never exist in Scotland. Therefore, it is far better to have the power in reserve. One cannot introduce major pieces of planning legislation every Session. One must look at the longer term and the matter of legislative time, which is precious.
To turn to the Amendment itself, if we are to have an affirmative Resolution the hon. Member really is saying, "Let us knock out one bit of its application". But he chooses the very provision which is the heart of Part III. I would not describe it as a wrecking Amendment, but it would mean that we should be applying the affirmative Resolution to a smaller part of Part III. I feel that this would be a mistake. Therefore, although I appreciate the principle behind the hon. Member's argument, the Amendment is only a vehicle to that end. It is not in itself a sound Amendment. Accordingly, I ask the House to reject it.
Earl of DalkeithWe have already had this evening one example of the extraordinary way in which the Government appear to be legislating by pushing through an Amendment which was incomplete and imperfect, with the necessity—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That debate is now over.
Earl of DalkeithI had finished that part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
We have seen an even more extraordinary example in that the Government have produced great wads of legislation which they admit may never be necessary. It is most odd at a time when the Government are complaining, indeed, when we are all complaining, about lack of time in which to produce all the legislation needed.
The Government from time to time boast about how generous they are with their legislation. In this case, the Government are being almost too generous. It is sad to reflect that at a time when so many things need to be done they should take up the time of Parliament, the time of the Scottish Committee, and of the other place, with a matter which they admit may never be needed. This is a case in which the Government have embarked upon something which has been copied straight from the English Bill so that they should not lose face.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The noble Lord must come to the Amendment. We are not discussing Part III. He must link what he is saying with the Amendments which seek to delete paragraph (a).
Earl of DalkeithThank you, Mr. Speaker.
Paragraph (a) is, as the Minister of State has said, a salient part of Part III. Therefore, it is a good example of how a great deal of time could have been saved. I illustrate the point to suggest that the Government might try to avoid making this sort of mistake again by embarking on something which it feels it must pursue for fear of losing face. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithWe are disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment. In Committee, we managed to edge him a certain way in the right direction, and we were encouraged by that. We thought that we might make him teeter a little further towards the edge. I am sorry that he will not take the full step. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State is beside him encouraging him not to accept the Amendment.
The Minister of State has based his arguments completely on certain notional 1598 circumstances which might arise in the future, and he admits that freely. Looking at the White Paper on town and country planning (Command 3333), all the emphasis of the part which is concerned with planning appeals relates to the situation in England and Wales, and this Clause originally was intended to meet the situation in England and Wales where the problem is one of quite different proportions compared with that north of the border. We are trying to come in on the coat tails of England and Wales when we do not need to.
If I could be persuaded by the Minister that we might come to a situation in Scotland such as there was in England and Wales, I see that a different argument would arise. But we cannot see that happening in the near future, and we do not see why we should have to legislate for a notional situation in the future when the Minister of State can see no prospect of it arising. Of course, we do not want to have to bring in extra legislation in two or three years, but does the Minister think that we shall reach a situation similar to that in England and Wales within the next two or three years?
§ Dr. Dickson MabonNo.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithIf the situation is ever reached, it is much more likely to be a longer way ahead, by which time it is almost certain that the House will be considering new planning legislation.
§ Mr. LawsonDoes not the hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between England and Wales and Scotland in this respect is the comparative stagnation which has confronted Scotland for many years? Does not he welcome the industrial development which this will give rise to? Surely he does not want to see the process of stagnation continue in a way that was characteristic of the period during which his right hon. and hon. Friends were in office.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithThe hon. Gentleman refers to the loss of jobs and stagnation in Scotland, but I would not attribute it to present planning procedures. It is the fault of the present Government. However, I will not go further on that point—
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that that is far enough for both hon. Members.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithThank you, Mr. Speaker. I got the point over, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for giving me the opportunity.
I come back to the question of numbers. In England and Wales, we talk of appeals by the thousand and, sometimes, tens of thousands. In Scotland, we are discussing a matter of 300 or so appeals a year, and, even of those, quite a number are withdrawn and never require determination.
I do not expect the Minister to answer this, but does he honestly see the number of appeals increasing substantially in the next three, four or even five years?
Taking the figures over the last three years, in 1965 there were 383, in 1966 the number dropped to 302, and in 1967 there were 341. There is no trend there in an upward direction. What circumstances does the Minister of State see arising which will lead to the astronomical increase which will be necessary before we reach the stage of the numbers of appeals in England and Wales? The hon. Gentleman has said nothing to justify to the House that that will happen. Nothing that he said convinced me that it will happen. If it will not happen, why must we have this Clause in this part of the Bill?
I should like to put this in one more constructive sense still. One of the purposes of the Bill is to get participation in planning. If we achieve participation in planning, which all of us want in the Bill, it should lead to a decrease in the number of appeals, not an increase. Therefore, if the Bill is to be a success, we ought not to see the number of appeals increasing.
§ On these two grounds, the Minister has completely failed to justify under what circumstances in future we are likely to reach a situation in Scotland which made this appeal procedure necessary for England and Wales.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Sir M. GalpernEven if the figures were to rise substantially in future, would the hon. Gentleman still be in favour of retaining the present system of appeals?
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI agree that we have a system which is tried, which has worked, which has the confidence of people in Scotland and which, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), has the confidence of the planners and the planned.
In Committee the Minister of State said that he had had no representations from local authorities in Scotland wanting it. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) that when we have a system which is thoroughly satisfactory, why change it.
Finally, if the participation that we get in planning is a success, instead of increasing, we must all hope that the number of appeals will come down. If that happens, where is the justification for having the appeal procedure that the Government have put into the Clause?
I have no hesitation in asking my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 191.
1603| Division No. 249.] | AYES | [10.34 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Burden, F. A. | Fisher, Nigel |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
| Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian | Chataway, Christopher | Foster, Sir John |
| Astor, John | Clegg, Walter | Gaibraith, Hn. T. G. |
| Awdry, Daniel | Cooke, Robert | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Costain, A. P. | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Crouch, David | Glover, Sir Douglas |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Currie, G. B. H. | Gower, Raymond |
| Biffen, John | Dalkeith, Earl of | Grant, Anthony |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Dance, James | Grant-Ferris, R. |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Gresham Cooke, R. |
| Blaker, Peter | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Gurden, Harold |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) | Dean, Paul | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) |
| Brewis, John | Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) |
| Brinton, sir Tatton | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Marvey, Sir Arthur Vere |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Harvie Anderson, Miss |
| Bryan, Paul | Errington, Sir Eric | Hawkins, Paul |
| Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M) | Eyre, Reginald | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Farr, John | Hiley, Joseph |
| Hill, J. E. B. | Monro, Hector | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| Holland, Philip | Montgomery, Fergus | Stainton, Keith |
| Hordern, Peter | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Stodart, Anthony |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | Murton, Oscar | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Nott, John | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Temple, John M. |
| Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Jopling, Michael | Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Waddington, David |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Pardoe, John | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) | Walters, Dennis |
| Kimball, Marcus | Percival, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Wiggin, A. W. |
| Kitson, Timothy | Pounder, Rafton | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Lane, David | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Pym, Francis | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Lubbock, Eric | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| MacArthur, Ian | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| McMaster, Stanley | Royle, Anthony | Wylle, N. R. |
| Maude, Angus | Russell, Sir Ronald | |
| Mawby, Ray | Scott, Nicholas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Maxwell-Hystop, R. J. | Scott-Hopkins, James | Mr Jasper More and |
| Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) | Mr Humphrey Atkins. |
| NOES | ||
| Albu, Austen | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McBride, Neil |
| Anderson, Donald | Foley, Maurice | McCann, John |
| Archer, Peter | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | MacDermot, Niall |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Ford, Ben | Macdonald, A. H. |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Forrester, John | McGuire, Michael |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Fowler, Gerry | McKay, Mrs. Margaret |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Freeson, Reginald | Mackie, John |
| Bagier, Cordon A. T. | Gardner, Tony | Mackintosh, John P. |
| Barnes, Michael | Garrett, W. E. | Maclennan, Robert |
| Barnett, Joel | Ginsburg, David | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) |
| Bence, Cyril | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | McNamara, J. Kevin |
| Gregory, Arnold | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) |
| Binns, John | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Manuel, Archie |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. | Mapp, Charles |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Marks, Kenneth |
| Booth, Albert | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Hamling, William | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Mendelson, John |
| Buchan, Norman | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Millan, Bruce |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Haseldine, Norman | Miller, Dr. M. S. |
| Cant, R. B. | Hazell, Bert | Milne, Edward (Blyth) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Heffer, Eric S. | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) |
| Chapman, Donald | Hooley, Frank | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Coe, Dennis | Horner, John | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Coleman, Donald | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Neal, Harold |
| Concannon, J. D. | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Ogden, Eric |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Oram, Albert E. |
| Dalyell, Tam | Howle, W. | Orbach, Maurice |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Hoy, James | Orme, Stanley |
| Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Oswald, Thomas |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Hunter, Adam | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) | Hynd, John | Paget, R. T. |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Park, Trevor |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Janner, Sir Barnett | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Dewar, Donald | Jenkins, Rt. Hn, Roy (Stechford) | Pentland, Norman |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Dickens, James | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Dobson, Ray | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. |
| Doig, Peter | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) |
| Driberg, Tom | Judd, Frank | Probert, Arthur |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Kelley, Richard | Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy |
| Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Eadie, Alex | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Edelman, Maurice | Lawson, George | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Leadbitter, Ted | Ryan, John |
| Ellis, John | Lee, John (Reading) | Sheldon, Robert |
| English, Michael | Lestor, Miss Joan | Short, Mrs. Remée (W'hampton, N. E.) |
| Ennals, David | Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Ensor, David | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Silverman, Julius |
| Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Loughlin, Charles | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Small, William |
| Fernyhough, E. | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Wallace, George | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John | Watkins, David (Consett) | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Taverne, Dick | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) | Woof, Robert |
| Tinn, James | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) | |
| Urwin, T. W. | Wilkins, W. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Varley, Eric C. | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) | Mr. Alan Fitch and |
| Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) | Mr. Joseph Harper. |
| Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |