HL Deb 17 January 1967 vol 279 cc9-25

2.53 p.m.

Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

Clause 6:

General powers of acquisition

6.—

(4) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, the Commission shall not have power by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order made before such day as the Ministers may by order appoint for the purposes of this subsection (in this Act referred to as "the second appointed day"), to acquire any land compulsorily except for one of the following purposes, that is to say—

(6) No order shall be made appointing a day for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, this Amendment is of a purely drafting nature. It is necessary because the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, a consolidation measure, has received the Royal Assent since the last stage of this Bill. The substance of the new section referred to is the same as that of the old one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 43, leave out ("25 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950") and insert ("34 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR had given Notice of several Amendments to Clause 6, the first being in subsection (4), after "subsection" to insert "and subject to the next following subsection". The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me, in moving this Amendment, to refer also to the next four Amendments, because the whole group, Nos. 2 to 6 inclusive, are linked and have a common and simple purpose. That purpose is to establish some form of Parliamentary control over the scope of compulsory purchase by the Land Commission after the second appointed day. Your Lordships will recollect that under subsection (4) of Clause 6, as it stands, the Bill provides that after the first appointed day and before the second appointed day the Land Commission may acquire land compulsorily only for the four specific purposes that are set out in subsection (4); but after the second appointed day there is no limit to the purposes for which the Land Commission may acquire land compulsorily. It is true that the types of land which they may acquire compulsorily are set out in subsection (3) and, so far as I am concerned, there is no question about that, but I think your Lordships will agree that a very substantial question arises out of the range of powers—unlimited powers, so far as purpose is concerned—that the Bill would at present provide for the Land Commission after the second appointed day.

The question as to the scope of compulsory purchase that should be given to local authorities and other statutory bodies has often been debated in this House in past years in relation to Bills that have subsequently become Acts of Parliament. Local authorities may acquire land compulsorily for this purpose, but not for that; Government Departments may compulsorily acquire land for this purpose, but not for that. Parliament has always taken a great interest in these matters—indeed, this goes back to the years immediately after the Great Fire of London, if not before—because for hundreds of years it has been felt that compulsory purchase is necessary in certain circumstances; but Parliament has jealously guarded the scope in relation to purpose that compulsory powers shall have. The reason is that Parliament has always thought that the citizen should have protection against the compulsory purchase of his property, unless it is proved that that property is required for a purpose that has been approved by Parliament.

Clause 6 of the Bill will sweep all that away; it frustrates all the work that has hitherto been done by successive Parliaments in defining the purposes for which compulsory acquisition may be used. If this Bill goes through un amended and a second appointed day is so appointed, from that time on the Land Commission will be able to acquire compulsorily the types of land set out in subsection (3) for any purpose whatever. My submission to your Lordships is that that is unduly exempting the Land Commission from control by Parliament.

I am not suggesting, I hasten to add, that the Land Commission at the moment it is set up will seek to impress on the present Minister the need for appointing a second appointed day very quickly and will press likewise on him that it wishes to do the most extraordinarily eccentric things the moment it has these unlimited powers. Nor, if I may respectfully say so, do I believe the present Minister would be prepared to confirm compulsory purchase orders for eccentric purposes. But Parliament has always to remember that we are not legislating for the present day or month or year, but for years ahead. We have no idea who the future Minister may be years ahead. The Land Commission is not an elected body, and Parliament, in fact, will have very little control over it, except in so far as Parliament can persuade a Minister to give it a direction on some subject or other. The Land Commission is a non-elected body which, if my Amendments are not accepted, will be given power to seek to acquire compulsorily land for any purpose it wishes. The only safeguard against its behaving arbitrarily, apart from such good sense as it may possess, is the attitude of the Minister, because these compulsory purchase orders have to be confirmed by the Minister.

However, I would invite your Lordships' attention to the fact that, even then, if the Minister confirmed an order which seemed to the Parliament of the day very strange, if not intolerable, the damage would be done before Parliament could intervene, because Parliament would not know that the Minister was about to confirm such an order. Indeed, after a public inquiry had been held, if there was one, it might have seemed unlikely that the Minister would confirm it because the case made had been such a weak one. Some unknown Minister in the future might confirm an order for quite an extraordinary purpose and there might be no undoing it. It could be challenged in both Houses of Parliament, but the action would have been taken and the compulsory purchase order would have been made.

This seems to me to make a travesty of Parliamentary control. What I am submitting to your Lordships is that, when we are setting up this new and untried body, it is really a most extraordinary thing that we should, not in the first stage, but in the second stage, after the second appointed day, give it these powers of compulsory purchase for any purpose whatever. All of us, certainly all of us who have been in local government, have seen various local needs which it would be nice to meet. But we have been aware up to now that the powers of local authorities to acquire compulsorily have been circumcribed by Act of Parliament, and however much we may have thought that it might be desirable that somebody should establish a home for stray cats in the borough, the local authority certainly have not had power compulsorily to acquire premises in order that somebody who wishes to run such a home should be enabled to do it.

I quite agree that this is an extravagant example, but I am deliberately taking an extravagant example to show how wide the powers are. If this clause goes through unamended, there is no reason why those who are concerned about the welfare of stray cats—and I say all honour to them for being so concerned—should not go to the Land Commission and say that it is absolutely essential that they should be enabled to purchase a property where they can run a home for stray cats and, if they can convince the Land Commission, the Land Commission can then go ahead and make a compulsory purchase order on whatever the selected property is, with a view to transferring the land in due course for use as a cats' home. If this is sense, it really is nonsense that Parliament has spent so much time hitherto circumscribing the purposes for which compulsory purchase is allowed.

What I am proposing in this series of Amendments is that, after the second appointed day—or (shall I say?) when we come up to the second appointed day—the order which the Minister must lay appointing a second day must specify the additional purposes for which he wishes to empower the Land Commission to acquire land compulsorily; additional, that is to say, beyond the four purposes set out in subsection (4). When we were discussing this matter in Committee I asked the Government to state what additional purposes they had in mind, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—possibly I took him unawares—gallantly gave one example, which I pointed out was already covered in paragraph (b) of subsection (4), so there was no need for additional power after the second appointed day. The example was already covered. I must ask again: what are these additional purposes for which the Government envisage that the Land Commission will require compulsory purchase powers after the second appointed day? The noble Lord in reply to me in Committee said that he knew of many, and there were others which might well emerge as time went on and the Land Commission gained experience.

I am quite prepared to accept that second statement, but it seems to me all the more important that, when the Government come to appoint the second appointed day, they should be required to tell Parliament what the additional purposes were that had by then come to light which made it necessary for the powers of the Land Commission to be enlarged. It seems to me and my noble friends that the practical way of ensuring this would be for the Minister to specify in his order making the second appointed day what additional powers of acquisition the Land Commission was to have after that day. I do not mind which way it is done, whether in the manner set out in these Amendments or in some other manner, but I am concerned to preserve Parliamentary control over the doings of this unknown body, the Land Commission, and to ensure that the property of the private citizen, whoever he may be, is not exposed to the possibly strange ideas of some future Minister, whatever his Party might be, who may be having to help to administer this Bill in years to come.

I stress again that I do not for one moment suspect the present Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, of urging the Land Commission to misuse its powers. But Parliament, when it passes any Bill, must be sure that it maintains proper Parliamentary control over any extension of the powers actually given in the Bill which it passes. It is for these reasons that I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 1, after ("subsection") insert ("and subject to the next following subsection").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

3.9 p.m.

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who has just moved this Amendment, and to those who agree with him, I think it is misconceived. His argument is a plausible one. It begins by saying, "Look for the purposes"; and you will find them, as regards an earlier period but only as regards an earlier period, in subsection (4). If we look back at subsection (3) all we shall find is a description of the land which the Land Commisison may take by compulsory purchase, but it might be useful just to see what the description is. The description is of land which must carry planning permission, and the planning permission must wholly or partially not have been carried out. Alternatively, it must be land which is allocated for certain purposes in the current development plan. In fact, as I see it, during the second period it is those subsections—I will not go through the whole of them—which carry the effective control over the actions of the Land Commission.

What this Amendment is really trying to do is, under the cover of Parliamentary control, to substitute a Whitehall decision for a decision of the local planning authority. This Bill cannot possibly work except in conjunction with and subject to the planning legislation. What the noble Lord and his friends are trying to do is to give the Minister, Whitehall in fact, an absolutely uncontrolled power, subject only to Parliamentary questioning over what the Commission are going to do. They can order the Commission to do anything, and that is not the permission which is given by the Bill as it stands. "Effective control" means that all the actions of the Land Commission in conjunction with compulsory purchase are subject to the planning legislation and, therefore, to the control which Parliament long ago decided ought to be a local control under the local planning authority. I would regard this Amendment as introducing a novel—I hope at this time—and a rather tyrannical principle into our dealings with land, removing from local authorities the control which they have to exercise, and substituting for it a Whitehall autocracy which I should have thought was somewhat out of line with the philosophy of noble Lords opposite. I am rather surprised to find this Amendment here.

I turn to one other part. It is said, "True, the Minister's authority is required, but it cannot possibly be questioned until it may be too late". I do not think that that is the position. I refer to subsection (2) of Clause 7 of the Bill. No order is to be made unless the Minister authorises the Commission to make it. His authority is to be exercised on the draft order that is mentioned earlier in the clause, and at an earlier stage than I should have gathered from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on the matter. On that ground, too, it seems to me that a second check—if check is required—is available. It is a check in the proper planning form and a check of a similar negative character on the planning decisions which have been embodied in the development plan of the area.

Now about these cats. The noble Lord has returned with his head full of stray cats! He wants to know what would be done about it. This is quite a good case. Is it really a proper matter for Parliament to consider, at any rate in the first instance, whether there should be a home for stray cats, for example, in Hampstead, or somewhere or another? I suggest that that kind of matter is rightly dealt with at present under the development plan and under the planning permission. The answer to this cats story is that Parliamentary control for that sort of thing is not wanted at that stage. It is wanted on broad questions, as a rule; and if you want the detailed control that I am sure must be required in the provision of cats' homes you should look to the planning authority to exercise it and not to the Legislature of the country. We have other matters to deal with, and it is quite right that this type of question should be with local authorities.

I regard this Amendment as misconceived because it seeks to give Parliament powers which are really exercised at present by the planning authority. It seeks to take away from local authorities something which they at present decide, and to transfer it to Whitehall. It is a form of aggressive bureaucracy with which my Party is occasionally charged. I am sorry that in making our converts opposite we have possibly chosen rather a bad point to convert them on, and I hope they will think better of it.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, a point about planning procedure which I thought would probably be raised by somebody in connection with my noble friend's Amendment I think is of some importance. I understand—and I am sure Lord Silkin will correct me if I am wrong—that under the Town and Country Planning Act it is open to any person or statutory body to apply for planning consent over land, notwithstanding that it does not belong to them. If that application is submitted to the local authority and turned down, it is then open to that person or body to appeal to the Minister, and the Minister may give that permission over the heads of the local authority. If that is correct—which I think it is—the protection given by this planning procedure is not really as great as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, would have us believe. It comes down to the Minister giving consent for anything that the Land Commission think is proper.

3.17 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)

My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Mitchison, covered some of the points I wished to make in reply to this Amendment, and I thank him. I wish I could accept the Amendment, or something like it, because it is so plausible and because the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, were so strong. But I cannot. I will try to tell the House why, and the reasons, I hope the House will agree, are neither frivolous nor sinister. To cover the ground again, up to the second appointed day the purposes for which the Commission can acquire land compulsorily are four, and they are set out in Clause 6(4) of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made the point that we should not give this new and untried body the very wide powers which he seeks to remove by his Amendment. My answer is that we are not proposing to give those powers to a new and untried body, but to an established and tried one. That is the reason why Clause 6(4) is there: to limit the purposes for which land can be compulsorily acquired during the first phase.

After the second appointed day the Commission's powers of acquisition are not limited by these four purposes, and in the view of the Government should not be so limited. This is because the Land Commission must operate as a major purchaser of land throughout the country with the greatest possible flexibility we can give them consistent with the rights of the citizen. My case is that the arrangements governing the second phase, unamended, are consistent with the rights of the citizen. Let me make it very clear that the fact that we propose to exempt the Land Commission from a list of purposes for which land can be acquired does not mean that we exempt them from giving their reasons, the reasons for which they propose to acquire each piece of land that they do acquire. We shall be coming to that in a moment. I propose to move an Amendment to the next clause in order to meet the objections of the Opposition on this point.

What we cannot accept, for very practical reasons, is that the Commission's operations should be tied after the second appointed day by one or more overall global purposes. The reason why the Opposition have presented this Amendment (and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, told us so) is because it is feared that the wide powers being sought by the Government for the Commission will operate to the detriment of the citizen and his freedom. But I believe that there are already plenty of safeguards against this in the Bill. There is a series of conditions about the various forms of planning decision; conditions which have to be satisfied, and which are set out in Clause 6(3), to which my noble friend Lord Mitchison has just referred. The Land Commission will be subject to ordinary planning control, and if the local planning authority do not like something which the Commission want to do they will say, "No". For instance, if the Land Commission say that they want to build a cats' home and the local planning authority, expressing the will of the citizens, does not want a cats' home, the Land Commission will not get it.

The noble Lord raised the question of whether the Minister could not over-ride the planning authority in favour of the Commission. Of course he could, in the same way as he could do so in favour of anybody else. He does not normally do so because we are blessed with democratic Ministers and with democratic controls; and these democratic controls will operate in the case of the Land Commission just as they would in the case of the noble Lord and myself.

There is an added safeguard in the Bill in that the Minister must approve every single compulsory purchase order when there is objection to it. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made a great point of the fact that after the second appointed day there would be no overall reason or purpose for which the Land Commission would be acquiring land compulsorily. This is not so. As it says in the Bill, the Land Commission are in business to acquire and handle land for the purposes of material development. That operates after the second appointed day just as it does before. In the case of the cats' home, if it was simply a question of converting one man's house into a cats' home I do not believe that that would be material development and, therefore, the Land Commission would not be able to do so. If, on the other hand, there was a proposal to build a new cats' home in somebody's garden or in a field, that would be new material development and would be subject to planning control. There is no danger that the Land Commission will ever acquire any land anywhere for a reason they do not state. The reason will be known to the owner of the land, and so far as I can say at the moment it will be known to anybody who wishes to inquire about it. What we cannot do is to accept an overall limitation of purpose after the second appointed day. I think we sometimes lose sight of the social needs which have given rise to this proposal for a Land Commission and a land levy. We are watching very closely the rights of the citizen, and it is right that we should do so. But there comes a point when we should stand back. From now until the end of this century we have to build the equivalent of one city the size of Bristol every year: every year 430,000 extra people have to be housed. At the moment we are not doing this, because, among other reasons, we cannot get the land. Therefore, we propose to set up a Land Commission to help to bring the land forward in order to carry out this quite unparalleled social task of the need for material development.

It is either a Land Commission or the "pill"—a "compulsory pill". It is either the Land Commission or a stop to all immigration; it is either the Land Commission or overcrowding; it is either the Land Commission or an extension of the slums. These are the crude facts which face us. We need one Bristol every year, and then we have to think where it is to go. It is a demographic challenge which we seek to meet with this Bill. We need a Land Commission which cannot be tripped up and delayed over and over again by court decisions. Once we are sure that the citizen has his rights—and we are sure that he has them in this Bill, with further reinforcements coming in an Amendment to the next clause—then we reject the concept of "belt and braces" at every stage. The belt is enough.

The Government are not willing to accept a delay month after month while every case is referred for consideration. We have been trying until lunchtime today, and, indeed, have been falling over backwards, to find something which would meet the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment. We could not do so, for these reasons. In the first place, any purpose which could be presented to Parliament in an order subject to Affirmative Resolution by the Minister, any purpose which would be wide enough to give the Land Commission the flexibility and to allow them the vigour which would be needed to build a Bristol every year, would be no more specific than the second appointed day order itself, which will be laid before Parliament subject to an Affirmative Resolution under the Bill. The Government could not say more without risking the perpetuation of the state of affairs whereby every little purchase by the Land Commission from here to eternity could be taken to the courts, involving delays of many months, as we have seen in former attempts to deal with this matter.

I hope that after what I have said the House will agree that the objections to this Amendment are neither frivolous nor sinister, but will accept my assurance that we cannot find a form of words which will make it possible for the Land Commission to make their contribution to the construction of the yearly Bristol which is needed from now on.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, when the noble Lord said that the Land Commission, after the second appointed day, will already be an experienced body, what sort of period does he envisage elapsing between the first appointed day and the second appointed day?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I cannot put any figure on it, but it will be a period which, in the judgment of the Government, will have enabled the Commission to have gathered the experience it needs.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I intervene merely to make a comment on the picture drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. During the greater part of my life, whenever I have travelled abroad I have noted the enormous pressure among the humbler folks in the countries I have visited to emigrate to Britain; and that pressure has grown as my years have become greater. Now, as the noble Lord has said, we require a Bristol every year. It is quite natural that this should be the situation, because the social services which this country provides are superior to those of any other country in the world, and I am perfectly content that it should be so. However, at a time like this, when all the most active and most intelligent citizens of our country are learning more and more to distrust the pound, and looking more and more to other countries as places where they may make a career, will not the result be that the Bristol which is built every year will be inhabited by people from overseas, who in turn will drive out the most intelligent people from this country, thus leaving the population of this country consisting almost entirely of people on the receiving side of our social services? That is the effect which the picture drawn by the noble Lord has on me, and I thought I would put it before your Lordships in order that he might correct me if I am wrong.

LORD KENNET

The noble Lord must form his own pictures from anything I said about the future of Britain, but I would not, by any means, endorse everything he said.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I have no wish to be difficult about this matter, but I must say I found the noble Lord's reply to my arguments somewhat unconvincing. Having been Minister of Housing, I am as concerned as everybody that it shall be possible to build a Bristol a year, as he imaginatively put it. But the powers to build a Bristol a year are set out extensively in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (4), and if the Government are already aware that additional powers are needed for major housing development of that kind, why are not the Land Commission to be authorised to use those additional powers before the second appointed day? I gather from the noble Lord's reply to my specific question that quite a considerable time will elapse between the first and the second appointed days; but we have no time to waste if we are to provide housing and other accommodation for the vast increase of population which this country must look forward to, and for that we want, above all, an effective housing policy and sensible, vigorous use of the powers given in subsection (4) before the second appointed day.

I am made anxious by the noble Lord when he speaks of wishing the Land Commission to be a major purchaser of land with the greatest possible flexibility. That word "flexibility" is, I think, a euphemism. What he wants is for the Land Commission, supported by the Minister, to do absolutely anything and not to be challengeable in the courts. Challenge in the courts is one of the safeguards of the citizen, and both Houses of Parliament have upheld that principle over many, many years. I am always made doubtful, and indeed suspicious, when it is argued that a non-elected body must be put in a position where it is virtually unchallengeable in the courts. That, I think, is the time when the interests of the citizen are in danger.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said about my extravagant example of the home for stray cats, and of course I do not disagree at all about his argument as to local control through planning permission. But my point rather was that, as my noble friend Lord Gage said, you can apply for planning permission if you have no interest by way of ownership or otherwise in the land, and the owner of the land may be entirely unwilling to dispose of it for the purpose of, let us say, a cats' home for which planning permission has been acquired by somebody else. It appears to me that under this Bill, unamended, those who wish to establish a cats' home there could then go to the Land Commission, wave their planning permission and say, "We think it is in the public interest that a cats' home should be established in this property and the present owner should be dispossessed". And there is no statutory bar to the Land Commission's saying, "Yes. This, of course, is wholly different from the purposes for which Parliament has approved compulsory purchase up till now, but, strangely enough, Parliament on this occasion has swept away all these restrictions and given us unlimited powers, and so we can consider seriously where to use them in cases of this kind".

LORD MITCHISON

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? When he said there was no statutory bar I am sure he had forgotten the requisite Minister's authority, which he himself mentioned is required for any compulsory purchase order. An order to take a piece of property in order to put a cats' home on it would require ministerial sanction.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My thesis is that Parliament, when it is considering any Bill, must consider not only the position as it is on that day, but the position as it may develop in years to come when quite a different set of Ministers may be in charge, when quite a different Land Commission, in personnel, may be there—and a more experienced Land Commission no doubt. It is not what any of us say in Parliament but what the Statute says that binds the non-elected body at that time, and this is where I am seeking to ensure that there is some Parliamentary control.

If the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, had given me a more satisfactory answer I should have been prepared not to take this Amendment any further, but I gathered from his opening words, when he said he wished he could have found some way to meet the purpose behind this series of Amendments, that he recognised that we were making a point of substance here and the Bill was not as satisfactory as it might have been. Indeed, he said that even up to lunch time to-day he was considering with his colleagues whether anything could be done about it.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to correct any false impression? I did not seek to give

the impression that there was a point of substance here—period—but that although there was a point of substance there was a larger point of substance on the other side of the argument.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am inclined to ask the House to divide on this matter for the simple purpose of giving the Government rather more time to see whether there is a solution which is acceptable to everybody here. I am not doing that in any wrecking spirit. I am accepting now the principle of the second appointed day; I am accepting that the Land Commission should have wider powers; I am accepting it, even though the noble Lord has never answered my question as to what further purposes the Land Commission may need to acquire land for. But I think it would be helpful to the Government if they had a little more time to consider this matter, to see whether they might meet a point of great concern to the citizens generally. Therefore I hope noble Lords will support me in the Division Lobby.

LORD KENNET

I must correct the noble Lord. It will not be helpful to the Government to have more time. We are satisfied we have considered the matter to the end.

3.40 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Congleton, L. Hacking, L.
Adrian, L. Crawshaw, L. Harlech, L.
Albemarle, E. Daventry, V. Henley, L.
Ampthill, L. Denham, L. [Teller.] Horsbrugh, Bs.
Arran, E. Derwent, L. Howard of Glossop, L.
Ashbourne, L. Devonport, V. Ilford, L.
Atholl, D. Dilhorne, V. Inglewood, L.
Auckland, L. Drumalbyn, L. Kilmany, L.
Audley, Bs. Dudley, L. Kinnoull, E.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E. Dundee, E. Limerick, E.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Ebbisham, L. Lloyd, L.
Barrington, V. Effingham, E. McNair, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.
Bessborough, E. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Mancroft, L.
Bourne, L. Falkland, V. Mansfield, E.
Brentford, V. Ferrers, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V
Brocket, L. Ferrier, L. Merrivale, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Foley, L. Milverton, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Forster of Harraby, L. Mountgarret, V.
Caccia, L. Fortescue, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Chesham, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Moynihan, L.
Clwyd, L. Gage, V. Newton, L.
Coleraine, L. Godber, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Colwyn, L. Greenway, L. Ogmore, L.
Conesford, L. Gridley, L. Portal of Hungerford, V.
Portman, V. Saltoun, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Rathcavan, L. Sandford, L. Vivian, L.
Redmayne, L. Sandys, L. Wade, L.
Rowallan, L. Savile, L. Wakefield of Kendal, L
Russell of Liverpool, L. Sinclair of Cleeve, L. Wedgwood, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] Somers, L. Willingdon, M.
St. Helens, L. Strange of Knokin, Bs. Wolverton, L.
St. Oswald, L. Swinton, E. Ypres, E.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V. Hilton of Upton, L. St. Davids, V.
Arwyn, L. Hughes, L. Shackleton, L.
Bowles, L. [Teller.] Iddesleigh, E. Shannon, E.
Brockway, L. Kennet, L. Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. Latham, L. Silkin, L.
Burton of Coventry, Bs. Leatherland, L. Soper, L.
Champion, L. Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Sorensen, L. [Teller.]
Chorley, L. Milford, L. Stocks, Bs.
Citrine, L. Mitchison, L. Strabolgi, L.
Crook, L. Moyle, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Faringdon, L. Peddie, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L
Gaitskell, Bs. Phillips, Bs. Wells-Pestell, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.) Popplewell, L. Williamson, L.
Granville-West, L. Ritchie-Calder, L. Winterbottom, L.
Henderson, L. Sainsbury, L. Wise, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.