HC Deb 17 March 1970 vol 798 cc331-50

10.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan)

I beg to move, That the Betterment Levy (Minerals) (Amendment) Regulations 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

It may be for the convenience of the House if we take the five regulations and the Motion for an humble Address together. It will be possible to have separate Divisions on these with the exception of the Motion for an humble Address, which must be put at 11.30 p.m.; otherwise it would fall.

Mr. Millan

What I would like to do is to say something about each of the affirmative regulations in turn and then something about the regulations which are the subject of the humble Address. I will deal first with the (Minerals) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1969 and the equivalent (Minerals) (Amendment) Regulations 1970. The main purpose of these regulations is to provide a new scheme for the assessment of betterment levy on mineral leases.

The Land Commission Act recognises that transactions involving minerals cannot readily be treated in the same way as other transactions in land and provides—in Section 74, under which power these regulations are made—for minerals transactions to be dealt with differently. But this power, in itself, was not wide enough to cover the change now proposed, and Section 40 of the Finance Act 1968 extended the regulation-making power of the Ministers.

Section 40 provides that levy may be charged as a proportion of rents, royalties, or other payments received under a mining lease, instead of as a capital sum at the start of the lease. In making this provision the Government recognised the strength of representations made by owners of mineral-bearing land against the method of charging levy as a capital sum. Briefly, they were these.

When a mineral lease is granted there may be great uncertainty about the quantity of minerals which the land will yield. But if betterment levy is to be charged as a capital sum it is necessary to estimate the mineral yield in order to arrive at the present capital value of the lease to the landowner. If, however, the actual yield falls well short of the estimate, the result will be that the landowner will have paid far too much levy, and there is the further disadvantage that the landowner must pay the levy in a capital sum long before he receives an equivalent income.

The converse also applies, and if the mineral yield greatly exceeds the estimate the levy payable is at a very low rate. For that reason the new regulations provide a mineral landowner with the option to make a capital payment if he fels confident that this will be to his advantage.

Under regulation 3 the basis of paying levy periodically in relation to royalties becomes the normal basis of assessment, unless the levy-payer elects, under Regulation 6, to remain on the capital basis, which is the normal way in which levy is charged on ordinary types of lease, and which may be more favourable to the landowner if he is fairly certain about the prospects of extraction. In Regulations 3 and 6 steps have been taken also to ensure that those who let mineral leases before the power to make these regulations was introduced in the Finance Act, 1968, can elect, retrospectively, for the new basis. The time allowed for the elections under Regulation 6 is two months. This period may be extended at the commission's discretion.

Regulation 5 is important from the point of view of the levy-payer because it describes how to convert the capital sum which has to be assessed by the mineral valuer into a percentage equivalent to be paid on the royalties. We need a formula to ascertain the levy which should be assessed as a proportion of the actual payments made from time to time under the lease. This is done by putting the levy, calculated as a capital sum, over the "consideration"; that is, the capitalised value of the anticipated payments under the lease.

Perhaps it would be easier if I explained this by the use of figures. If the market value is £50,000 and the base value is £20,000, the levy is on £30,000 which, at 40 per cent., gives £12,000 payable. This would give a fraction of 12,000 over 50,000—that is, the capital levy payable over the market value—and this fraction would be the levy charged on the royalties as received. The figure would be conveyed to the levy-payer by means of a "certificate of effective rate" under Regulation 8.

Regulation 7 provides for the normal two months' service of a counter-notice when a levy-payer wishes to dispute his assessment. Arbitration is available to settle disputed cases if negotiations fail to produce a satisfactory result.

There follows a series of short regulations which apply under the provisions of the main Act to transactions covered by the regulations, for example, powers to call for further information, penalties for false information, relief in respect of estate duty and a number of other things, on which I will not go into detail because they simply repeat the provisions in the main Act.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Wokingham)

Will the Minister kindly assist the House? He is gabbling through a brief which is before him. Will he please go a little slower because hon. Members this side of the House do not have the ability to follow him when he is speaking so quickly, neither do they have the facilities for having speeches written for them.

Mr. Millan

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced that offensive tone at this early stage in our deliberations. I hope he will find my explanation perfectly comprehensible.

Regulations 21, 22 and 24 are anti-avoidance provisions. It is clearly necessary, with any form of levy, to protect the revenue by ensuring that avoidance of payment is prevented.

The minerals regulations have one other purpose, which is to extend the exemption from levy already afforded to mineral undertakers under the existing minerals regulations. Broadly speaking, the existing regulations provide exemption on the start of a project where a mineral undertaking company owned land in September, 1965, when the Land Commission White Paper was published, or has since bought it in an arm's-length transaction. These regulations cover combinations of circumstances which have not previously been provided for; namely, land which a fellow member of a group of companies owned in September, 1965, and cases where a new operating company is formed within a group to work the minerals. The Land Commission has already recognised the case for this further exemption and has operated it extra-statutorily since an announcement by the then Minister of State to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in January, 1968.

The House is also asked to accept that the date for the operation of the mineral regulations should be 1st April. It is normal practice for the date to be stated in the regulations, and 1st April, 1970, is a convenient date. It brings these regulations into line with a number of other regulations that are to be made this evening, and I ask the House to accept the common sense of making the date 1st April, 1970.

The Exemption in Case C Order, which is item 4 on the Order Paper, provides exemption for the construction of agricultural dwellings. It was always intended that the erection of agricultural dwellings would not attract levy so long as the dwellings remained in agricultural use. The method by which this intention has hitherto been put into effect, by postponement of collection of levy with waiver of interest, has not proved entirely satisfactory in administration. Therefore, the Order provides for complete exemption, and I am sure that it will commend itself to the House.

The next set of regulations is the Material Development (Amendment) Regulations. Material development is defined in Section 99(2) of the Act by way of exclusions from the definition of development in section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962. This was the English section, because, for reasons I shall mention, there is as yet no Scottish counterpart to these regulations. The exclusions cover development permitted under General Development Orders made under the 1962 Act, most of the development included in Schedule 3 to that Act, and development of any class prescribed in regulations.

The main regulations except from the definition of material development a wide range of minor development. The purpose of the present regulations is to exclude from material development three more types of work. The main reason for making these further exclusions is that at present a good deal of detailed work has to be done in investigating cases notified to the commission where these types of development are concerned, but where for various reasons there is generally no liability to levy.

Regulations 2(a) and (b) deal with advertisements. A lot of small advertising is done under licence from the owner on whose land the advertisement is displayed. When an advertisement board is erected in such circumstances, the owner, not the advertiser, is the developer of the site for the purposes of the betterment levy. In practice, there is unlikely to be a liability to levy because of the £1,500 exemption introduced by the Finance Act 1969, but an owner may be unwilling to grant a licence because he fears that there may be a liability to levy. The purpose of Regulation 2(a) is, therefore, to give certainty and clarity to an exemption which in most cases will apply in any case.

Regulation 2(b) brings the Material Development Regulations into line with the Control of Advertisement Regulations 1969, under which the construction of advertisements in the forecourts of business premises is permitted without express consent.

Regulations 2(c) and (d) deal with electricity sub-stations, the construction of electricity sub-stations of under 1,000 cubic feet by electricity boards is already excluded from material development by the General Development Order 1963. Sub-stations of over 1,000 cubic feet are material development, but such projects are almost invariably exempt from levy because they are carried out on operational land of the boards, which are statutory undertakers; and Section 58 of the Land Commission Act provides widespread exemption from levy for operational land of statutory undertakers. The purpose of Regulations 2(c) and (d) is therefore to dispense with the need for the construction of electricity sub-stations of between 1,000 cubic feet and 100 cubic metres to be notified to the commission, rather than to confer an exemption from levy.

Regulation 2 (e) is a technical point which arises from the General Development Order, 1968.

I turn now to the Case F General (Amendment Regulations) 1970. These regulations do two quite separate things. By Section 47 of the Finance Act 1969 a levy-payer may, in certain circumstances, use as base value the price paid for land during the interim period between the publication of the Land Commission White Paper on 22nd September 1965, and the coming into force of the Act in April 1967. Regulation 2 of the regulations applies this benefit to Case F dispositions.

Regulation 3 applies the Case F provisions to compensation for depreciation in land values which is paid under a limited number of public and private Acts which are not included in the original Case F regulations. This is largely a tidying-up operation and brings into the schedule the Private Acts passed up to 1969. Since these Acts provide for transactions where compensation is given for depreciation in the value of land, it is right they should be brought within the scope of Case F where the previous Acts are already included.

The final regulations with which we are dealing are the Planning Assumptions Regulations, to which the Opposition have put down a Prayer. No doubt the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will make a number of points about the regulations, and since I am speaking before he does, obviously I will not be able to deal with them. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will answer any points on the regulations which the hon. Gentleman makes.

The purpose of the regulations is straightforward. The original Planning Assumptions Regulations were related to the General Development Order as it stood in 1967. The general purpose was to ensure that the right to carry out material development without express planning permission, which is conferred in certain circumstances on bodies such as statutory undertakers, did not result in unintended benefit to parties selling land to those bodies. There seems to be no reason in equity why parties selling land to those bodies should be exempted from levy.

However, the General Development Order has subsequently been amended since the previous Planning Assumptions Regulations were put into operation. Therefore, the present regulations bring the Planning Assumptions Regulations into line with the state of the General Development Order by adding to the original list the works which are now permitted by the General Development Order.

Since the principle of this provision is already included in the previous Planning Assumptions Regulations, it cannot be said that the present regulations add any new principle. In those circumstances, I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition should have put down a Prayer against these regulations. But I must ask the House to reject the Prayer.

Inevitably, these various regulations are rather complicated. I have gone over them in turn, and I think that I have explained the main provisions. I know that the hon. Member for Crosby will have understood my explanation, if on one else has. I commend all the regulations to the House and ask it to reject the Prayer on the Planning Assumptions Regulations.

Mr. Speaker

I understand that we are taking together all the Motions on the Order Paper, plus the Prayer, and that my predecessor in the Chair has informed the House that, if we do not vote on the Prayer before 11.30, it will fall.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I will endeavour to deal with the regulations in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper, as the Under-Secretary of State has done. Therefore, I deal with the minerals regulations first.

There are two dealing with the betterment levy on minerals, one relating to Scotland and the other to England and Wales. I do not understand how the Under-Secretary of State could have the courage to put forward the arguments which were pressed by the Opposition during the passage of the Land Commission Bill and which were then rejected. That is what he has been saying tonight. I do not understand how he has the courage to say that these regulations are quite simple. He read from a very efficient brief. However, it takes a little time for a subject such as this to get out of the paper which is before the Under- Secretary of State and into the minds of hon. Members. It is more than a little puzzling, especially when the brief is read at such speed.

The point about the two minerals Instruments is that, throughout the passage of the Land Commission Bill one of the main objections to this levy was that, concerning Case B on leaseholds and Case C on material development, the levy is payable before the receipt of the money on which it is assessed. What happens about the assessment of levy in those cases is that the lease is capitalised and the levy-payer is called upon to pay on that capitalised value before he receives any rent.

A further major complaint of the Opposition was that there would be double taxation, because there would be taxation twice on the same amount; that is to say, by an assessment of the levy and an assessment of corporation tax, so far as a company was concerned, and capital gains tax for others. We complained that the levy had to be paid out of money which was not received and that it was in the form of double taxation.

Mining and quarrying operations were extreme examples of the unfairness and injustice of this betterment levy. Mining operators do not pay a fixed rent. They pay royalties on the mineral yield. Therefore, as the Act stood, The Land Commission sought to capitalise the estimated yield from a mine or quarry. This was abject nonsense, because nobody could estimate that ahead. The landlord would have been paying before receipt of his royalties without any real knowledge of what they would be. He might receive much less than he or the Land Commission anticipated. He might pay in levy, capital payment, and income tax and capital gains tax more than 20s. in the pound on royalties. That was how it was working out under the Act. Almost immediately after that rather fantastic Bill had become law——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Act is not the subject of the debate, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Mr. Page

It is necessary to go back to the Act under which these regulations are made to show how it was amended shortly after it was passed. These regulations are directly related to Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1968, which endeavours to amend the Land Commission Act, 1967——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss the parent Act or the amending Act. We can discuss only the regulations.

Mr. Page

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I was discussing the regulations. These regulations are made under or by reference to Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1968. Under that section the Minister was empowered to make regulations so that the landlord could elect to pay a percentage on royalties rather than the betterment levy on a capitalised value. But we have had to wait all this time for these regulations to come forward. They have come forward three years after the Act, and they provide that the payment can be based on the royalties rather than on the capitalised value of the mining lease, but they still do not take into account the fact that within the payment of royalties there is a capital payment. There is no tax allowance for that payment. I call it "capital payment" because, in mining, the asset is being wasted all the time—I use "wasted" in the legal sense. To put it another way, the asset is being spent all the time.

In having to devise a scheme to meet this difficulty with which mining and quarrying operations were faced, the Order introduces the concept of the "effective rate". This is the rate to be charged on the royalties, the percentage which will go into the pocket of the Exchequer via the Land Commission. It would need a magician of a mathematician to challenge the Land Commission on its notice of assessment of effective rate. It is too complicated for anyone, even those who are permanently operating in mining, to understand the calculation of this effective rate. A memorandum from the Country Landowners Association, which deals very effectively with this sort of subject, says: It cannot really be claimed by the most fervent supporter of these regulations that they can be comprehended by the mineral owner who is subject to them. That is the main objection to them. It amounts to the fact that this is taxation at a rate decided not by the House or the Government but by the Land Commission, because no one has the power to challenge that rate. By this complicated legislation, we are delegating the right to tax, and that is a fundamental objection.

I pass now to the betterment levy exemption in Case C. In this case, the Order exempts the building of houses for agricultural workers from betterment levy. We are happy with any exemption from betterment levy. In fact, such buildings have in practice been exempt because the Land Commission has delayed collection of the levy to see whether the houses really are to be occupied by agricultural workers. It having been made substantive law by this Order that the levy shall not be collected in respect of the building of houses for agricultural workers, is the Order to be retrospective? What is the position of those who are now subject to postponement under the existing practice? Is the Sword of Damocles to hang over their heads in future in case they may change the use of the property? This does not appear from the Order.

These houses are to qualify for exemption if the occupation and the user will, in the opinion of the Land Commission, fall within a certain provision in the General Rate, 1967. The same applies similarly to Scotland under the Statute which applies there. That provision of the Act describes what is an agricultural building. It may be that, when the Land Commission has to consider the matter, it will not be known whether or not the building is to be used for agricultural workers; this levy falls on the developer at the moment he starts to build. That is not the point, however.

The point here is whether or not it will be an agricultural building and not whether, in the opinion of the Land Commission, it is going to be an agricultural building. The Land Commission is not concerned with whether this is going to qualify for exemption from the rate. It is concerned with whether or not it will be an agricultural building as laid down in the provision to which the Order refers.

If the levy-payer does not agree with the opinion of the Land Commission, he can go to the Lands Tribunal. But what will he be faced with? The commission will say, "In our opinion, this is not an agricultural building", and that is surely the end of the matter. The Order says that the building shall not be an agricultural building exempt from betterment levy if in the opinion of the Land Commission it is not. The Lands Tribunal will say, "The Land Commission has said that in its opinion it is not an agricultural building. The Order says that it is not exempt if in the opinion of the Land Commission it is not an agricultural building, so there is nothing more to appeal about."

An effort was made to solve this sort of problem in Section 49 of the Finance Act, 1969, where it is said that if anything under the Land Commission Act, 1967, had to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the Land Commission the Lands Tribunal could consider the case and go into its merits. It need not be bound by what the Land Commission might say was to its satisfaction. But that does not apply to this case. Those words are not used here; the words used are in the opinion of the Commission". If the Order stands with those words in it there will be a denial of an appeal on the merits to the Lands Tribunal.

The next matter on the Order Paper is the Material Development (Amendment) Regulations, 1970, which give three exemptions from betterment levy. To that extent again we on this side of the House are happy, but certainly in the first case, that of advertisements, they do not go far enough. They are so complicated that I doubt whether anybody concerned with the erection of hoardings for advertisements or with advertisements on the walls of premises or in forecourts and outside shops could really understand whether he was liable to betterment levy or not. The regulations talk about areas not exceeding eight square metres, including new advertisements and existing advertisements, and define at great length what is meant by an existing advertisement. It is all extremely difficult to understand, and I would have hoped that when we are dealing with this sort of subject, exemptions from a tax, the matter could have been made perfectly clear.

Next on the Order Paper are the Case F General (Amendment) Regulations, 1970, which seek to increase the base value when a tenant disposes of property. Case F was that notorious case under the Land Commission Act, 1967, whereby, by regulations, the Minister could sweep into liability for betterment levy any transaction affecting land which the draftsman had forgotten to put in the Act. The Minister has taken advantage of that in the regulations since the Bill became an Act.

Immediately the Act came into operation we had a Case F General Regulations, which the regulations before us seek to amend. They made compensation for depreciation, by public works, subject to a levy. What on earth can be the justice in this? What we are dealing with is a person whose property value has been depreciated by some public works near or even on that land. We are dealing not with compulsory purchase or with the price paid to the owner when his land is acquired, but with something in the nature of a statutory nuisance to the land. The loss to the owner of the land, the injury which he receives in the use of his land, will have been assessed, or, perhaps, there will be agreement to pay him compensation for the inconvenience, the suffering, which he has had to undergo from some public works—the loss of an easement, the loss of a right of light or a right of way. These are the sort of things we are dealing with and not cases in which the owner has been paid compensation for a part of his land being taken away. Having been paid that compensation, he is now to have 40 per cent. of it taken away in betterment levy. This is the greatest injustice of the levy.

The Order is to come into effect on the operative date, but I am not sure whether it is retrospective to the previous Order or only takes place after the Order is made.

This Order is so grossly unfair—that an owner should have to pay a levy on the money he has been paid for his inconvenience and suffering—that I would ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide against it.

I turn now to the Prayer. Betterment levy is assessed on the amount by which market value exceeds base value. The base value is calculated on a complicated basis, but the levy-payer's concern is to have his base value as high as possible, because that decreases the difference between the base and market values. Base value is calculated on the assumption that planning permission will not be granted for any material development. So to say that some activity is a material development is to exclude a potential part of the base value. It widens the gap and increases the amount upon which levy is payable.

The regulations in question say that something—it is difficult to understand what—shall be put into the Betterment Levy (Planning Assumptions) Regulations 1967. One has to turn to the Town and Country Planning (General Development) (Amendment) Order 1968 to find out what it is. It is, in fact, boreholes for gas and runways for aerodromes. One might think that it does not matter very much to the general citizen to know that something is happening whereby levy is increased because there is a borehole or a runway.

Our complaint is, first, that the jungle of regulations one has to fight through before discovering what this is all about makes it quite impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand what it is all about. Secondly, the Town and Country Planning Order, 1967, makes these particular items not material development. Thirdly, the effect of the Order, when we find what it is all about, increases the occasions for levy. It does so because it increases the gap between base value and market value. It may be said, "What does this matter to the public? It is only a liability for a couple of public bodies, the gas authority or the British Airports Authority. But any liability on public authorities is passed on to the public. It affects the owner of land in compulsory acquisition and affects the overheads of the gas authority or the British Airports Authority.

It was a basic principle of the Land Commission Act that any matter included within a general development Order which did not need town planning per- mission was not a material development and would not attract levy. I stress that. Throughout discussions on the Bill which led to the Act of 1967 we were given to understand that anything which did not need specific planning consent—that is to say, which was included in the General Development Order as having an automatic consent—would not be material development.

The two items I have mentioned, even though they be only boreholes for gas or runways for an aerodrome, have been included, so for planning permission they are excluded and now brought in for the purposes of betterment levy. They are brought in by reducing the exemptions which an ordinary owner can claim whose property is being valued for the purposes of betterment levy.

I assure the Under-Secretary that any Order which increases betterment levy will be opposed from this side of the House. We think the levy is an imposition which is quite unjustified, and as soon as we can get rid of it, we will.

Mr. Speaker

Does the House wish me to put the Motions separately?

Mr. Graham Page

We would not wish to divide on the first four Motions, but we would on the penultimate and last ones.

Mr. Speaker

My Latin is, I hope, as good as the hon. Member's. I shall put Motions Nos. 2 to 5 together.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Betterment Levy (Minerals) (Amendment) Regulations 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Milian.]

Resolved, That the Betterment Levy (Minerals) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Milian.]

Resolved, That the Betterment Levy (Exemption in Case C) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.—[Mr. Milian.]

Resolved, That the Material Development (Amendment) Regulations 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Milian.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Case F General (Amendment) Regulations 1970, a copy of which was laid

before this House on 3rd March, be approved. —[Mr. Millan.]

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 91.

Division No. 84.] AYES [10.45 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Fraser, John (Norwood) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Alldritt, Walter Golding, John Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Allen, Scholefield Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Murray, Albert
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Neal, Harold
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Harper, Joseph Oakes, Gordon
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Harrison, Walter (wakefield) Ogden, Eric
Beaney, Alan Heffer, Eric S. Orbach, Maurice
Bence, Cyril Hobden, Dennis Orme, Stanley
Bidwell, Sydney Hooley, Frank Oswald, Thomas
Binns, John Horner, John Palmer, Arthur
Bishop, E. S. Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Park, Trevor
Blackburn, F. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hoy, Rt. Hn. James Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Huckfield, Leslie Pavitt, Laurence
Booth, Albert Hughes, Roy (Newport) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Boston, Terence Hunter, Adam peart Rt. Hn. Fred
Brooks, Edwin Hynd, John Pentland, Norman
Buchan, Norman Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur Perry, Ernest G (Battersea, S.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Jones, Dan (Burnley) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Probert, Arthur
Concannon, J. D. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Conlan, Bernard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Crawshaw, Richard Judd, Frank Rose, Paul
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lestor, Miss Joan Ryan, John
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lomas, Kenneth Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Loughlin, Charles Silverman, Julius
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Slater, Joseph
Dempsey, James McBride, Neil Spriggs Leslie
Dickens, James Macdonald, A. H. Steels, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dobson, Ray Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Tavern[...], Dick
Doig, Peter Mackintosh, John P. Tinn, James
Doig, Peter Mackintosh, John P. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) MoNamara, J. Kevin Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F' th & C'b'[...]) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wallace, George
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg) Watkins, David (Consett)
Ellis, John Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
English, Michael Mapp, Charles Wellbeloved, James
Ennals, David Marks, Kenneth Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Marquand, David Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Faulds, Andrew Mikardo, Ian Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Fernyhough, E. Millan, Bruce
Finch, Harold Miller, Dr. M. S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Mr. Alan Fitch and
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Mr. James Hamilton.
Forrester, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
NOES
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Fortescue, Tim Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maddan, Martin
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Glover, Sir Douglas Marten, Neil
Berry, Hn. Anthony Goodhew, Victor Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Biffen, John Gower, Raymond Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Black, Sir Cyril Grant, Anthony Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Blaker, Peter Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert Monro, Hector
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Grieve, Percy Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Gurden, Harold Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M) Hawkins, Paul Murton, Oscar
Clegg, Walter Heseltine, Michael Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Cooke, Robert Hirst, Geoffrey Osborn, John (Hallam)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Holland, Philip Page, Graham (Crosby)
Crowder, F. P. Howell, David (Guildford) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Dalkeith, Earl of Hunt, John Peel, John
Dance, James Hutchison, Michael Clark Pounder, Rafton
Digby, Simon Wingfield Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Drayson, G. B. Kaberry, Sir Donald Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Eyre, Reginald Kirk, Peter Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Farr, John Lawler, Wallace Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Fisher, Nigel Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Longden, Gilbert Royle, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) Wiggin, Jerry
Scott, Nicholas Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Scott-Hopkins, James Tilney, John Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Wright, Esmond
Silvester, Frederick van Straubenzee, W. R.
Speed, Keith Waddington, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stainton, Keith Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Walker, Peter (Worcester) Mr. Jasper More
Tapsell, Peter ward, Christopher (Swindon)

Motion made, and Question put, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Betterment Levy (Planning Assumptions) (Amendment) Regulations 1970 (S.I., 1970, No. 271) dated 23rd

February 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be annulled.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 142.

Division No. 85.] AYES [10.53 p.m.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hawkins, Paul Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Heseltine, Michael Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Hirst, Geoffrey Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Berry, Hn. Anthony Holland, Philip Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Biffen, John Hooson, Emlyn Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Black, Sir Cyril Hornby, Richard Royle, Anthony
Blaker, Peter Howell, David (Guildford) Russell, Sir Ronald
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hunt, John Scott, Nicholas
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hutchison, Michael Clark Scott-Hopkins, James
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M) Kaberry, Sir Donald Silvester, Frederick
Clegg, Walter Kirk, Peter Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Cooke, Robert Lawler, Wallace Speed, Keith
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stainton, Keith
Crowder, F. P Longden, Gilbert Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Dalkeith, Earl of McAdden, Sir Stephen Tapsell, Peter
Dance, James Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Digby, Simon Wingfield McNair-Wilson, Michael Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Doughty, Charles Maddan, Martin Tilney, John
Drayson, G. B. Marten, Neil Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Eyre, Reginald Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Farr, John Mills, Peter (Torrington) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Fisher, Nigel Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Waddington, David
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Monro, Hector Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Fortescue, Tim Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Glover, Sir Douglas Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Goodhew, Victor Murton, Oscar Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wright Esmond
Grant, Anthony Osborn, John (Hallam)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert Page, Graham (Crosby) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grieve, Percy Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Gurden, Harold Peel, John Mr. Jasper More.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pounder, Rafton
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Golding, John
Alldritt, Walter Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Allen, Scholefield Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Harper, Joseph
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dempsey, James Haseldine, Norman
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dickens, James Heffer, Eric S.
Beaney, Alan Dobson, Ray Henig, Stanley
Bence, Cyril Doig, Peter Hobden, Dennis
Bidwell, Sydney Dunnett, Jack Hooley, Frank
Binns, John Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Horner, John
Bishop, E. S. Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Howarth, Robert (Dolton, E.)
Blackburn, F. Edwards, William (Merioneth) Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Ellis, John Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Booth, Albert English, Michael Huckfield, Leslie
Boston, Terence Ennals, David Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Brooks, Edwin Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Hunter, Adam
Buchan, Norman Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Hynd, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Faulds, Andrew Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Fernyhough, E. Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Finch, Harold Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Concannon, J. D. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Conlan, Bernard Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Crawshaw, Richard Forrester, John Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Dalyell, Tam Fraser, John (Norwood) Judd, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Rose, Paul
Lestor, Miss Joan Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Lomas, Kenneth Murray, Albert Ryan, John
Loughlin, Charles Neal, Harold Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Oakes, Gordon Silverman, Julius
McBride, Neil Ogden, Eric Slater, Joseph
Macdonald, A. H. Orbach, Maurice Spriggs, Leslie
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Orme, Stanley Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Mackintosh, John P. Oswald, Thomas Taverne, Dick
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Palmer, Arthur Tinn, James
McNamara, J. Kevin park, Trevor Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Parker, John (Dagenham) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Wallace, George
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Pavitt, Laurence Watkins, David (Consett)
Mapp, Charles Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Marks, Kenneth Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Wellbeloved, James
Marquand, David Pentland, Norman Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Perry, Ernest G (Battersea, S.) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mikardo, Ian Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Millan, Bruce Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.>
Miller, Dr. M. S. Probert, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Mr. Alan Fitch and
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Rodgers, William (Stockton) Mr. James Hamilton.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)