HC Deb 18 June 1969 vol 785 cc491-505

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker

I have published my list of sleceted Amendments, as is my wont. We come now to new Clause 5.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have kindly indicated that we can discuss, as Amendments to the new Clause, Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'where' to 'powers' in line 3 and insert: 'a local authority have by resolution declared an area of land to be a general improvement area'. Amendment (b), in line 1, leave out from 'have' to end of Clause and insert:

New Clause 5
5 Where, in pursuance of section 35 of this Act, a local authority have published information indicating that they propose to acquire any land in the exercise of their powers under this Part of this Act, sections 139 to 151 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (protection of interests in land affected by planning proposals) shall have effect as if
(a) the land were included in that specified in subsection (1) of section 138 of that Act and its description in the definition of 'the specified descriptions' in subsection (5) of that section; and
10 (b) in section 139(3) of that Act 'the relevant date' were defined, in relation to on the land, as the date on which the information was first published;
and section 152 of that Act (no withdrawal of constructive notice to treat) shall have effect accordingly; and section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 (power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) shall apply in relation to the land as it applies in relation to land of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.
—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.52 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I hope that I might move this Motion with some despatch, because I am sure that the Clause will be generally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and also because, in part, it owes its existence to the advocacy of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).

'declared an area to be a general improvement area then any person being the owner-occupier of any dwelling within that area may serve on the local authority concerned, at any time within six months from the date of the declaration, a notice in writing requiring such authority to purchase his interest in the dwelling whereupon the local authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire such interest compulsorily by compulsory purchase order in relation to which Part I of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies and to have served a notice to treat on the date upon which the owner-occupier served his notice by virtue of this clause'.

Amendment (c), in line 10, leave out from 'which' to end of line and insert 'the resolution was passed'.

May I ask that we might have Amendment (a) called for a Division if the Minister does not satisfy us?

Mr. Speaker

I am in a gentle mood at the moment. I am prepared to concede a Division on Amendment (a).

The position about compensation for blight as a result of planning procedures, as is well known to hon. Members who interest themselves in this problem, is broadly that if an owner-occupier, a small person, or indeed, a small businessman, occupying premises with a rateable value of £750 a year is adversely affected by what appears to be a fairly precise indication that at some stage the land on which the premises are situated will be acquired, he can in certain circumstances serve a notice asking the appropriate public body to purchase.

Normally speaking, the categories are the case of land comprised in a compulsory purchase order, or where there is a firm indication that land under a structure plan, as it will be in future, or under a development plan sometimes in the past, is likely to be acquired by a public body. The public body has the opportunity of serving a counter-notice that, in the end the land is not likely to be required.

As the law stands, it would not be possible to apply the blighting provisions in improvement areas. Improvement areas are only just being defined and discussed in the Bill. When this matter was first considered by the Government, it was considered not necessary to include this provision, for the simple reason that the declaration of an improvement area will, in most cases, have an extremely beneficial effect on the area as a whole because here, by quite substantial grants, owner-occupiers will be encouraged to improve their houses to bring them up to a very high standard.

Furthermore, by the environmental grant, with the help of substantial Treasury backing, there will be the equivalent of a maximum of £100 per house to be spent on improving the neighbourhood. Consequently, the last thing that will normally happen when an improvement area is declared is any deterioration in the value of property.

Subsequently, the hon. Member for Crosby pointed out that there might occasionally be the case where, after the resolution had been passed under Clause 32, and the declaration under Clause 35 made about details of the improvement area, some property was affected, and that in these circumstances—although such cass will be rare—an owner might find difficulty in getting the market price for his property.

The sort of thing that one has in mind is where there is a derelict piece of land and if the end house next to it were added, or if the area of the land on which that house stands were added to the derelict piece of land, it would be possible to make a play space, or a small garden, or something which would improve the quality of the environment.

In those circumstances, it is possible that an owner-occupier or small business man might be in difficulty. The Clause will provide a suitable opportunity for a local authority to make its position clear by a counter-notice if the land is not to be ultimately acquired, and for the small man to claim the blight provisions. I hope, therefore, that the Clause will receive general approbation.

In view of this substantial Clause, in the sense that it can cover any real hardship, I hope that the Opposition will not press their Amendments. I say that for two reasons. First, if they press them, they might find that they would have an unfortunate effect upon the determination of some local authorities to go ahead with improvement areas. One Amendment would enable any owner-occupier in an improvement area to serve a notice on the local authority requiring it to purchase. I think that some authorities would not want to face a situation in which, under the Amendment as drafted, they have no option to refuse. There is no question of serving a counter-notice. They might have to buy a large number of properties which they do not require, and therefore it would be difficult to say that any hardship arose. The whole point is to deal with hardship.

The other Amendment would give a similar provision, but in respect of any land within the improvement area. Again, unless one can say that there is hardship in this, there is the opportunity for a local authority to serve its counter-notice. It would be making the blight provisions go very wide indeed, with the result that it could have a seriously inhibiting effect on local authorities and their determination of the areas. That is all I say now, but I am sure that the Clause will be generally welcomed.

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that we have a mass of work ahead of us. Reasonably brief speeches, and reasonably brief debates, will help.

Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)

We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the concession he has made in seeking to meet the real objections that we raised in Committee. This Clause was foreshadowed by new Clause 11, which was moved in Committee. We are, however, somewhat disappointed, because the Clause does not follow some of the assurances that we thought we received on that occasion.

New Clause 11 which I moved in Committee—and the hon. Gentleman will find this at col. 865—proposed that any person having an interest in any dwelling included in a general improvement area might serve notice on a local authority at any time within six months of the making of the declaration, and that following on the service of that notice the local authority would be obliged to acquire that person's interest, following the general law that exists where a clearance area has been made.

4.0 p.m.

The cogent objection of the Parliamentary Secretary, in Committee, was that to give this right to a person with any interest in any house might be far too wide and unworkable. He suggested that consideration might be given to tabling on Report a new Clause limiting this right to the owner-occupier. As a result of that, Amendment (b) was tabled to the new Clause.

It seeks to give the owner-occupier of any dwelling within an area prescribed by a local authority as a general improvement area the right to serve a six months' notice, as suggested in the new Clause which we discussed in Committee and which I thought was acceptable, apart from the description of the interests in respect of which this procedure could be adopted. It is, therefore, disappointing that, since we have tried to meet the objections expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, he proposes on Report to narrow the field of operation still further.

Only Amendment (b) deals with the owner-occupier. The other Amendments deal with the point in time when a person affected can serve notice on the local authority requiring it to buy the house. The new Clause states that the right to serve the notice can arise only when the local authority says that it wants the property and has published information under Clause 35 saying, "We intend at some time to acquire the property". When that happens, the individual concerned can say, "Do not let us wait until you are ready. Buy it from me now".

We suggest in the Amendments that as soon as the local authority declares an area to be a general improvement area, whether or not it says that it may want to acquire later, the owner of any property in the area should be able to say to the authority, "If you want to make this a general improvement area, take my property from me, whether or not you say that you will acquire it at some future time".

The Government's attitude is that the initiative must always rest with the local authority, which can say, "We wish to acquire" and the owner can say, "Please acquire it now". We say that, whether or not the local authority exercises this power, an individual who may be affected in a variety of ways by the declaration of a general improvement area should be able to say, "As you want to do something in this area which may detrimentally affect my property, you should acquire the house now. Here is a notice requesting you do so".

Mr. Skeffington

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that under the compensation provisions it should be possible for public authorities to purchase even when there is no element of hardship? If that is his argument, he will realise that that would be an enormous extension of the commitment with which local authorities might be faced in many developments. That has never been the basis of compensation up to now.

Mr. Rossi

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman assumes that there will be hardship only when the local authority says that it will acquire the property. Hardship can also be caused when the general improvement area declaration is made, because that gives many powers to local authorities, apart from the power of acquisition which we are discussing.

The mere fact that a local authority says, "We are declaring this to be a general improvement area", which immediately gives the authority all the powers contained in Clause 36, could well blight property in the area. Individuals concerned may easily find that there is no longer a market for their property, whether or not the local authority intends to buy. If the local authority wishes to exercise its power to carry out works on the property, it may discourage other people from buying it.

Therefore, I urge the Government to consider that hardship can easily arise outside the intended exercise of acquisition powers by a local authority. It can arise by the mere declaration of a development area. I urge the Government to accept one or more of the Amendments. Judging from the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary, it would appear that he has made up his mind. In accordance with what you said, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to keep battering at a door which is firmly shut. However, I hope that my comments and those of my colleagues will have persuaded the Minister to reconsider the matter and to satisfy himself about whether hardship can arise in circumstances other than in the case of acquisition. If he so satisfies himself, I urge him to have second thoughts and perhaps table an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Speaker

I should like to point out to the House that this is the first of at least 40 debates which we are to have on Report.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hove)

It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary answered the objections in his speech when he intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). He said in his speech that cases of fright of blight in improvement areas would be few and far between. We can take it, therefore, that there will be even fewer instances of fright of blight when the local authority does not declare that it wishes to purchase.

The hon. Gentleman said that we might be opening the door wide to an enormous number of demands to purchase. What he has said since shows that that could not happen. There would be only a restricted number of cases, albeit important cases for the occupiers.

Mr. Skeffington

That is not what the Amendment says. It provides that, once a declaration was made, any owner-occupier would be able to serve a notice requiring the local authority to purchase and the local authority would not have, as it has under general compensation law, the right to serve a counter-notice.

Mr. Maddan

That brings me to my second point, which is that presumably owner-occupiers would want a local authority to purchase their property only if they had fright of blight. Otherwise, why would they want their property purchased? The Parliamentary Secretary will not, for fear of letting the horse bolt out of the stable, even let the mouse run out from beneath the stable door. I detect in his interventions a complete non sequitur. I support the Amendment and hope that the hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts on the subject.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

The Government have always been unwilling to extend the blight provisions. Here they are extending them, but only an extraordinarily small amount.

The circumstances which we are discussing are similar to those applying to roads, and in that connection, if there is a plan that a road will at a future time be laid down, an owner can claim blight. In exactly the same way, if a local authority says, "We intend at a future date to purchase your property", the owner can, under this concession, claim blight.

Mr. Maddan

Is it not a fact that a local authority need not have determined that it will buy property for a new road at a future date, but merely say that there is a chance that it will buy the property to entitle the owner to require it to purchase the property?

Mr. Allason

That is so in the case of roads. I suggest that the situation we are discussing is broadly similar and that, for this reason, the Government should be prepared to go further.

Eventually, the Government will be forced to extend the blight provisions. In the case of motorways, they have had to give an indication that they are having second thoughts about the blight provisions because they recognise the harm that can be done to the owners of land and property immediately beside motorways. We are discussing a parallel case. If there is a general improvement area there may be injurious affection and any owner, not merely owners whose land is to be taken from them at a future date, should be entitled to claim blight if he is in the area concerned.

The Parliamentary Secretary's answer to our claim is that this would be unfair to local authorities, which would have to face too many notices. To whom should we be unfair, if we must be unfair to somebody? I suggest that the onus should be placed on the local authority and that, if it wishes to damage somebody's prospects, it should be prepared to pay compensation. To that argument the Parliamentary Secretary replies, "There may not be any damage". Does he really believe that a person whose interests are not being damaged will say to a local authority, "I require you to purchase my house"?

Mr. Skeffington

That is precisely what the Amendment says. That is why it is unworkable and completely against the compensation principles.

Mr. Allason

The hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no need to prove damage before requiring a local authority to purchase. I am asking him to say what sensible man would require a local authority to purchase if no damage was being caused. He would be able to sell his property on the market. If damage is being caused, it is reasonable to expect the local authority to pay compensation. We are, in terms of compensation for blight and injurious affection, moving into a new era and I therefore support the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page

This is an extremely important matter. In Committee, we discussed the entirely new concept of the general improvement area. My hon. Friends welcome this new experimental form of development but, because it is experimental, we cannot expect to have got it exactly right in Committee. I therefore make no excuse for questioning the new Clause in an effort to put right some of the defects to which we referred in Committee.

We are grateful to the Government for having tabled the new Clause. However, there are still some defects in this new experimental procedure, particularly in regard to the effects that it will have on the property owner and occupier.

In discussing the new Clause and Amendment—I wish particularly to concentrate on Amendment (a) which would overcome some of the points raised in the Parliamentary Secretary's interventions—we are dealing with something which originated in 1959, which was embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and which was amended in the 1968 Act.

The general intention of the procedure of a purchase notice when property is blighted is that an owner, and particularly an owner-occupier, should be given the right, if he cannot sell his property because it is required for the benefit of the community, to call on the local authority which will eventually acquire it to acquire it immediately.

When that general principle was embodied in legislation it did not go as far as the general statement which I have made. Limitations were placed on it. For example, one had to discover whether the road or whatever it might be interfering with the property was marked on a plan, and whether there was an order for compulsory purchase. The 1962 Act was so narrowly drawn that only under certain circumstances could one serve a purchase notice and take advantage of the provisions about blight.

These limitations have been resented over the years, but there has always been this safeguard against any abuse of the right given in the 1962 Act; that the person who served the notice on the local authority must show that, by reason of the blight, he had been unable to sell his property at the price which he might reasonably have expected to get for it had the property not been so blighted. That is the safeguard and that is the way in which the interventions of the Parliamentary Secretary should he met.

The general improvement area, which is the scheme created by the Bill, extends actual blight; that is, any property within an area declared as a general improvement area may be subject to blight. It may not be possible for the owner to sell his property at the reasonable price which he would have expected had it not been included in the general improvement area.

We hope that the previous mistake which was made in embodying this sort of principle in legislation will not be made again and that we will not be too restrictive in stating when property is legally blighted, for frequently we find that a property is actually blighted but is not legally blighted, with the result that a purchase notice cannot be served on the acquiring authority.

An extension of the principle, from what I call "legal blight" to "actual blight", was recognised in the 1968 Act and it is in that spirit that we seek to amend the new Clause. The 1968 Act said that property would be blighted—and, therefore, a purchase notice could be served—if the land was indicated in a structure plan for the district in which it was situated, either as land which might be acquired for the functions of a Government Department, local authority, and so on. That is much the same as will happen under a declaration for a general improvement area. It will be put into an area in which the local authority may take any steps for improving that area, and certainly steps by way of compulsory purchase.

I join issue with the Parliamentary Secretary on two points he made when introducing the new Clause. He said that the blight provisions applied to two categories of restriction: first, if there was a compulsory purchase order placed on property, or if it was indicated that it would be subject to a compulsory purchase order; and, secondly, if a structure plan showed that it was likely to be acquired.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was not what was said in the 1968 Act. It said that it was land which "may be required" by an acquiring authority. If it is included in a general improvement area it comes exactly within that sort of description; it may be required by an acquiring authority at some time in the future to improve the area, for example for an open space or to improve roads. I put the general improvement area directly alongside a structure plan—and, having recognised that principle in the Act, I ask that we recognise it again in this Bill.

The second point on which I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is when he said that if we amended the new Clause as suggested by my hon. Friends—I particularly have in mind Amendment (a)—it would be a deterrent to local authorities to declare general improvement areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because one would have the safeguard that the person who served a purchase notice must prove that he had suffered.

The safeguard in Section 139 of the1962 Act is that to succeed with a purchase

notice against an acquiring authority the person must prove that, since the relevant date, he has made reasonable endeavours to sell his interest and has been unable to do so, except at a price substantially less than he might reasonably have been expected to have got if no part of the hereditament or unit was comprised in the scheme. Unless the owner can show that, his purchase notice fails and that is the safeguard against abuse of this procedure.

It may be, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the declaration of a general improvement area will enhance the value of property in the area. There may be occasions when it is clear that property will not be touched for an open space, road improvement, the provision of walkways, and so on, so that its value will be enhanced because the tone of the neighbourhood will go up.

In many cases, however, the value will be damaged, and it is in those cases that we should preserve the right of the owner to serve a purchase notice, whether or not there is an immediate intention that his property will be subject to compulsory purchase. He should be entitled, if he can prove that he cannot sell it at a reasonable price, to serve a notice on the acquiring authority and ask it to purchase it from him at that stage.

I am sure that acceptance of Amendment (a) would not damage the new Clause, but improve it, and certainly improve the rights of individuals affected by a general improvement area declaration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a Second time. Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, in line 1, leave out from the word 'where' to the word 'powers' in line 3, and insert 'a local authority have by resolution declared an area of land to be a general improvement area'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 201.

Division No. 268.] AYES [4.25 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Black, Sir Cyril Bullus, Sir Eric
Astor, John Blaker, Peter Burden, F. A.
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Braine, Bernard Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Brewis, John Carlisle, Mark
Bell, Ronald Brinton, Sir Tafton Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Biffen, John Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Clark, Henry
Clegg, Walter Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pink, R. Bonner
Cooke, Robert Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Pounder, Rafton
Corfield, F. V. Jopling, Michael Prior, J. M. L.
Costain, A. P. Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Pym, Francis
Crouch, David King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Cunningham, Sir Knox Knight, Mrs. Jill Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Russell, Sir Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Dougles Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) MacArthur, Ian Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Errington, Sir Eric McMaster, Stanley Speed, Keith
Stainton, Keith
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Fortescue, Tim Maddan, Martin Tapsell, Peter
Foster, Sir John Maginnis, John E. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Glover, Sir Douglas Maude, Angus Temple, John M.
Goodhart, Philip Mawby, Ray Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Gower, Raymond Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Grant, Anthony Mills, Peter (Torrington) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Waddington, David
Grieve, Percy Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Monro, Hector Ward, Dame Irene
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Montgomery, Fergus Wells, John (Maidstone)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) More, Jasper Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Hastings, Stephen Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hawkins, Paul Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heseltine, Michael Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wright, Esmond
Higgins, Terence L. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Wylie, N. R.
Hill, J. E. B. Nott, John Younger, Hn. George
Holland, Philip Onslow, Cranley
Hordern, Peter Page, Graham (Crosby) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hutchison, Michael Clark Page, John (Harrow, W.) Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Percival, Ian Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Abse, Leo Dunnett, Jack Kenyon, Clifford
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Ellis, John Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Alldritt, Walter English, Michael Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Anderson, Donald Ensor, David Lawson, George
Archer, Peter Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Leadbitter, Ted
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Fernyhough, E. Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lipton, Marcus
Barnett, Joel Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Loughlin, Charles
Bidwell, Sydney Ford, Ben Lubbock, Eric
Binns, John Forrester, John Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Bishop, E. S. Freeson, Reginald Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Blackburn, F. Gardner, Tony McCann, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur Ginsburg, David MacColl, James
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Macdonald, A. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony McGuire, Michael
Booth, Albert Gregory, Arnold McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Boyden, James Grey, Charles (Durham) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Bradley, Tom Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mackintosh, John P.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Brooks, Edwin Griffiths, Will (Exchange) McNamara, J. Kevin
Broughton, Sir Alfred Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. MacPherson, Malcolm
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hannan, William Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Harper, Joseph Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Cant, R. B. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Manuel, Archie
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hazell, Bert Mapp, Charles
Concannon, J. D. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Marks, Kenneth
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hooley, Frank Marquand, David
Crawshaw, Richard Hooson, Emlyn Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Horner, John Mayhew, Christopher
Dalyell, Tam Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Huckfield, Leslie Mendelson, John
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Millan, Bruce
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hynd, John Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Delargy, Hugh Janner, Sir Barnett Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Dell, Edmund Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Dempsey, James Jeger, George (Goole) Neal, Harold
Dewar, Donald Johnson, Carol (Lewisliam, S.) Newens, Stan
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Jones, Dan (Burnley) Ogden, Eric
Dickens, James Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) O'Malley, Brian
Dobson, Ray Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Oram, Albert E.
Doig, Peter Judd, Frank Orbach, Maurice
Dunn, James A. Kelley, Richard Orme, Stanley
Oswald, Thomas Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Tuck, Raphael
Owen, Will (Morpeth) Ross, Rt. Hn. William Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Ryan, John Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Palmer, Arthur Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Sheldon, Robert Wallace, George
Pardoe, John Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. Watkins, David (Consett)
Park, Trevor Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Parker, John (Dagenham) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Wellbeloved, James
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Silverman, Julius White, Mrs. Eirene
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Skefflngton, Arthur Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pentland, Norman Slater, Joseph Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Small, William Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Snow, Julian Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Spriggs, Leslie Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Price, William (Rugby) Steel, David (Roburgh) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Probert, Arthur Steete, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Woof, Robert
Rankin, John Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Rees, Merlyn Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Symonds, J. B. Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Taverne, Dick Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
Rodgers, William (Stockton) Tinn, James

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Arising out of new Clause No. 9—Rents for rehousing—I am not querying the selection, which I accept must be in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but the three areas referred to—slum clearance, improvement, and comprehensive development areas—have a constituency bearing as 1,574 families in my constituency need to be rehoused and would be affected. Would I be in order to raise the constituency matter on the Adjournment to cover the specific case which prompted that new Clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

That point is not one for the Chair. The hon. Member can raise the matter on the Adjournment only so long as he so deals with it that it is not a matter affecting legislation.

Forward to