Clause 79. — (Mineral workings.)

Orders of the Day — Town and Country Planning Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 1st August 1947.

Alert me about debates like this

Lords Amendment: In page 91, line 46, at end, insert: (c) that where—

  1. (i) a mining lease was in force on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, having on that day an un-expired term of not less than three years, or
  2. (ii) minerals were being won and worked immediately before that day by a person having an interest therein otherwise than under a mining lease,
no payment shall be made under the said Part VI in respect of any interest in the minerals comprised in the said mining lease, or in any minerals which form part of the same seam or deposit as that in respect of which the operations mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph were being carried out and in respect of which an interest was held as mentioned in the said sub-paragraph, as the case may be, and that no development charge shall be payable under the said Part VII in respect of the winning and working of the said minerals under the mining lease referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph or in respect of the winning and working of any minerals referred to in the said sub-paragraph (ii) in respect of which no payment has been made under the said Part VI as aforesaid."

5.15 p.m.

Photo of Mr Lewis Silkin Mr Lewis Silkin , Camberwell Peckham

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

A good deal of consideration has been devoted to this Amendment, both in Standing Committee and in another place, and I think it is true to say that, of all the Amendments, this has aroused the greatest interest in another place. It is the Amendment dealing with minerals. Briefly, the proposal from another place is to take out from the compensation and betterment proposals so much mineral land as would cover all the minerals in the seam or deposit, in respect of minerals being worked otherwise than under lease. It is quite impossible to say what is part of the same seam or deposit. Ever since this Bill has been under consideration there has been an attempt to delimit the area of land in respect of which minerals are being worked, so as to draw a line to correspond with what in the case of building land is ripe land, and land which is not ripe. In the case of minerals there must be a large amount of land which may not be ripe for a very long time to come, if ever, and this is truly unripe. So far, we have failed to draw a clear and intelligible line to distinguish between what is ripe and not ripe. That is one of the reasons for giving to the mineral worker the three years' moratorium which is provided for in the Bill. As the Bill stands, he will be allowed to work his minerals for three years, either from the appointed day or 7th January—I am not sure which—but, at any rate, for a further three years.

Photo of Mr Lewis Silkin Mr Lewis Silkin , Camberwell Peckham

I am obliged. The assumption is that the additional three years' working, together with such workings as are taking place until the appointed day, would give the mineral worker the full value of his minerals and a reasonable equivalent to the owner of dead ripe land. The question then arises, what should be done as regards mineral workings which will clearly take place, or which will probably be continued, after the expiration of the three years? The proposal in another place was that for the whole of the duration of the lease, whatever it might be, all those workings should be treated as ripe land, even though it would not follow that the minerals would be worked, or that they would be worked as intensively as they are today, or that there would necessarily be a demand for those minerals. After all, we are talking of leases which may be of 99 years' duration, and it seems fatuous to suggest that minerals which may not be worked for 30, 40 or 50 years can be included in the category and treated as ripe land. Therefore, I find myself unable to accept the Amendment which has been put forward in another place, as I think it goes much too high.

If my analogy is fair—that is, that one can treat mineral land similarly to ordinary building land, and divide it into categories of ripe and near ripe, as I think one can—then I should be prepared to deal with land which is worked for minerals in the same way, by introducing a new category of land equivalent to the near ripe land in the case of building developments. The position would be that an undertaker holding freehold mineral land, say, on 7th January last, would receive payment of compensation equal to the full development value in respect of the mineral land needed for a future programme of extraction of a fixed amount.

One would endeavour to agree with each category of mineral owner—not with each individual owner, but with each category of owner—of gravel, iron ore, iron stone, and so on; one would endeavour to agree what is a reasonable rate of extraction, what is a reasonable period of extraction. In the case of one owner it might be ten years; it might be 12 years; it might even be 15 years; and I would not rule out as long a period as that. I would say, dealing with each category of mineral extractor, and also agreeing with him as to a fair average rate of extraction, that, in respect of that reasonable amount of mineral, number of years and rate of extraction, he should be entitled to the full compensation out of the fund of £300 million and should pay the full development charge. As to the remainder of his extraction, he would pay the normal development charge; and as to any land remaining beyond the agreed rate and period of extraction, he would rank in the ordinary way for payment out of the £300 million. That would place the mineral workers, as I have said, in a position comparable with that of the ordinary building developers, and I think it would go a very long way towards meeting their legitimate demands.

Let me say at once that, probably, I think, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would accept this, almost without question—though they would like to look at it—but for the fact that the compensation is to come out of the £300 million. But I want to say once more that this was a factor which was broadly taken into account. I am not suggesting that one had worked out how much was likely to be paid in respect of this particular Amendment out of the £300 million. But one had assumed that there would be a certain number of people who would have payments out of the £300 million for the full amount of their compensation, and had allowed for that, and had assumed that others would come into less than the full amount. Therefore, I do not think that, in accepting this proposal, which would be in the form of a regulation, and which would be agreed with the representatives of the mineral workers, any real injustice would be done to those who would rank pro rata for the £300 million; because, as I have said, if it had not been intended to pay certain people the full amount of compensation, the £300 million would certainly have been reduced. But I think that, apart from that point, on the merits, the proposal that I have put forward is worthy of acceptance, and would reasonably meet the point of view of the mineral workers, and I hope that, on this explanation, the House may see its way not to press for the retention of this Amendment.

Photo of Mr William Morrison Mr William Morrison , Cirencester and Tewkesbury

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting suggestion to us which I have heard for the first time, and in the course of his introductory remarks he made it clear he was about to conduct some conversations with mineral workers as to the possibility of arriving at some scheme of this character. I do not want to say anything at short notice and without consideration which would hamper the coming together of the parties at variance for a settlement of their disputes, and so, if the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not attempt at short notice to say anything on that matter for the time being, thinking it might do good, which might only do harm. I am too old a negotiator myself to enter on such matters without having them in black and white and firmly in my own mind. I am not a mineral worker and I am not entitled to speak for them; I am only a Member of Parliament.

On this particular matter that we are discussing, namely, whether we accept or reject the Amendment made by the Lords, I have these observations, purely on political grounds and technical Parliamentary grounds, to address to the House. I have made many speeches on the question of the minerals in the course of our discussions, and so I desire now to be as brief as I can. I remember making a very long speech on the subject once in Standing Committee, which is on record. I have always regarded the inclusion of minerals in this Bill as its worst blemish. I say so for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman is in his present difficulty—he is not satisfied with things as they stand today, as witness his speech—because he is proceeding on an analogy which is not a true analogy, namely, the analogy of mineral working with the development of land. They are not the same. They are governed by different economic considerations. The attempt to apply a method which has been worked out for dealing with a complicated system of development values in land to an entirely different thing—different in nature; a different subject, like mineral working—is, I think, at the root of the confusion and difficulty on this subject that has been continued all through our discussions.

Let me put it this way. We resorted to a global sum to compensate owners for development rights. The justification for that, if justification it be, is only in the fact that there is a floating value in the assessment of development charge for ordinary building. No one can know exactly where development will float. Its location is not fixed. Consequently, if everybody's claim is taken into consideration, there will be more claims than houses built. But in the case of minerals, there they are: they do not float; they are fixed in the soil; and their presence can be ascertained. Certainly, in all current mining operations, where the thing is in existence—and it is to this land alone that the Lords Amendment refers—in all those cases the minerals are there and ascertained. There is no question of any float about it. But, in my opinion, if they are being acquired there is no justification for acquiring them by a global sum such as is appropriate to mere speculative ventures like the development of houses.

So much for the compensation side of it. When we come to the betterment side the thing is even clearer. We are in this Bill charging the owners of ordinary land a development charge because we say that they are being given a planning permission which will enable them to increase the capital value of their properties by putting bricks and mortar upon them. In the case of an owner of mining land, the operations do not increase the value of his property. They diminish it. There is no justification here for a development charge. If we go to Northamptonshire and see what was once good agricultural land is like after the ironstone has been taken away, we can see that the mining operation was not an operation like one for the improving of a great estate by the building of houses upon it. It is a very different thing, and, indeed, the very reverse of the development of land in the ordinary building sense. So I say that minerals should never have been included for compensation and betterment in this Bill. If the Government had decided to take over minerals, they should have produced a separate Bill for the purpose, founded upon the special character of mineral working, and not proceeding upon the analogy, which I claim is false, between development by mining and development by putting up houses and other buildings. That is the reason, in principle and in theory, against this proposal to include minerals. It was a reason which not only convinced me in excluding minerals, when I was responsible for the Coalition White Paper on this subject, but which convinced the Uthwatt Committee when they were considering the same matter,

5.30 p.m.

Even at this late stage, if the Minister cannot exclude mineral workings entirely from this Bill, then he ought at least to adopt the suggestion made in another place, that for current mining transactions there ought to be a, moratorium; they ought to be allowed to proceed without being involved in a compensation and betterment scheme which is not applicable to them, yet they are dragged in although the scheme has been worked out for the ordinary building development of land. That is my major point, and always has been. In the course of our discussions I have referred from time to time to the value of these minerals. I do not intend to enlarge upon that to-day, because I discussed it very fully in Standing Committee, and gave the reasons. In another place a considerably lower estimate was given, which I could analyse and suggest where the differences arise, but there again, that would be out of the scope of our discussions. The Minister says, "I do not wish to pledge myself to figures which I must take upon the authority of others." The importance of the matter is, that the larger the true value of the minerals, the less there is left out of the £300 million for other people.

Photo of Mr William Morrison Mr William Morrison , Cirencester and Tewkesbury

That is. the view of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He, we know, would not give them anything. But, assuming he is not speaking for the party opposite—an assumption which I think I am entitled to make—it is of importance to see that we get this figure right. If, indeed, I was right when I said the true figure was between £50 million and £100 million, that is a tremendous slice out of a compensation fund intended to deal primarily with development and not mining at all. The relevance of these calculations and discussions is of moment not only to the mineral workers, but to all those who have to rely upon the fixed sum of £300 million for compensation in respect of the deprivation of their development rights.

The last point I desire to make upon this matter is one which I made before. If one examines the profits for royalties, or the output of minerals—I care not what standard is taken—they show the greatest activity, as one would expect, in times of vigorous, progressive house building. The contrary is also true, and if a check is put upon the proper development of those minerals, then a grave impediment is put in the way of a really important housing drive in this country. We know the difficulties that have attended the building of houses; we know that there is not a strong current of house building, which would take this in its stride, but a weak and feeble stream. Any impediment placed in the way of house building at the present time is to be doubly deplored. If these minerals-the greater part of which is used directly in the service of making homes for the people—are dragged into this compensation and betterment scheme, it will have a deleterious effect upon the housing programme, and will add one more check to the great desire felt, I believe, in every part of the House, to get on with the provision of homes for the people.

If the Government are determined to go on with this scheme they should, as was proposed in another place, exclude altogether current mining transactions. Those involved here do not ask for compensation; they make no claim out of the £300 million, and they should not pay the betterment charge. Leave them alone to get on with their business, for I am sure that would be in the interests of good administration, of housing, and of a good scheme in the Bill with which we are now dealing.

Photo of Mr Charles Williams Mr Charles Williams , Torquay

Before addressing myself to the subject under discussion, I must disclose to the House that I have a small interest in certain mineral rights. In years gone by I have had a close association with the development of minerals in Cornwall, and therefore, having some knowledge of the subject, I think it would be wrong of me not to point out to the House on this occasion that mineral development is entirely remote from the development of the land. They cannot possibly be dealt with on the same lines; the same considerations are not applicable, and we cannot possibly know what will happen in the future. Let me give two or three illustrations. First, the tin and copper mining industries, which go back not hundreds but thousands of years. At one time those industries were valuable and prosperous, but discoveries elsewhere have rendered them almost valueless today. For the life of me, I cannot see how any sort of compensation can be worked out in that case. When different people and concerns own varying fractions of a lease there will be enormous complications in apportioning the amount of compensation.

There may be areas of land containing minerals, which, in the next few years, will be of considerable importance to this country, but that has nothing whatever to do with ordinary compensation for the development of building land. For example, China clay is a raw material which will be absolutely essential to us, in view of the impending financial crisis. We shall have to develop that industry to the fullest possible extent in this country, and how can we hope to fix any form of compensation and betterment? It is sometimes assumed that the development of minerals is profitable to the landowner, but that is not necessarily so. I once undertook an electioneering venture in Cheshire—at which I was not too successful—and one of the important considerations arose over the salt mines, when legislation was introduced to deal with it. Compensation for minerals involves legal complications which will keep many lawyers busy for quite a long while. Those minerals are the raw materials which we shall need in the immediate future.

My right hon. Friend referred to the value of building stone. When you are dealing with a county council, they do not want a lease for three or four years, because they want to develop for a long period, and at the end of the period a considerable amount of land may be quite useless. You cannot tell now how you are to compensate now, or how many acres they will take—a thousand things may turn up; the county council may find a better stone somewhere else, which is handier or easier to work.

I have tried not to be controversial, and to put a point of view which I felt should be put. I represent a West Country constituency, and this is a matter which affects the living of many people, although it does not affect a very large number in my constituency. The Minister said that he was looking into this. I hope that even at this late stage he may see that the argument against bringing minerals into the Bill is stronger than he originally thought. That being so, this Amendment will not do any great harm, nor will it wreck the Bill. This Clause is an unnatural thing to graft on to the plant of this Bill. Is it really worth doing something which will upset industry at the present time, and which in all probability will have to be cut out when the financial crisis comes? Would it not be better to cut it out now, than to have to do so at a later stage?

545 p.m.

Photo of Mr Ralph Assheton Mr Ralph Assheton , City of London

This is the first opportunity that Members, who were not fortunate enough to be on the Committee upstairs, have had to consider this question of minerals. The Minister has agreed that it is a very important matter, although it occupies only one Clause in the Bill. I wish to say at once that I have an interest, although not a very large interest, and therefore hon. Members will no doubt discount to some extent anything I may say on the grounds that my views may be prejudiced. On the other hand, I have the advantage of knowing something about the matter, which may possibly be of help to the House. It is quite clear that the native minerals of this country are of very great importance to the nation, particularly at the present time. In the aggregate, and on the scale they are now being developed, I suspect that they amount to a considerably larger total than the figures which have been indicated from the other side would lead one to suppose. It is only right to draw attention to the fact that the increasing mechanisation, which is going on at the present time, makes a considerable difference to the possibility of development during succeeding years. I could give an example of one mineral, being worked on a very large scale, where the output has been doubled or trebled in the last two or three years without any very substantial increase in manpower. That is due to mechanisation—power loading, and so on.

The importance of minerals is so great that the procedure of dealing with all minerals in one Clause of this Bill, which is a very lengthy and involved Measure and deals chiefly with other matters, is in my view entirely wrong. I can understand that it is the procedure the Minister has adopted and intends to adhere to, and I propose therefore to address myself to the problem with that in mind. The procedure laid down leaves too many gaps in our knowledge, and too many uncertainties. It will give rise to a considerable amount of frustration and annoyance, and I am fearful that to some extent it may lead to holding up mineral development. I sincerely hope that it will not be the case, because it is important that mineral development should not be held up. If it is suggested that there should be some method of dealing with minerals, I would have preferred the matter to be thoroughly examined and dealt with in quite another way. However, it is now in the Bill as presented by the Minister, and I, therefore, want to make one or two detailed observations and objections to the Clause as drafted. The period of three years, which the Minister has laid down as a sort of moratorium, is really too short. I appreciate that, owing to the fact that he has to obtain a valuation within five years, it would be difficult to extend that period beyond five years. It is a difficulty which arises from the fact that he has approached the matter in this way.

The next point is that it will be very expensive to work this Clause, and it will absorb a great deal of time and manpower which may hold up the development of our national resources. I say that because it means large numbers of people interested in this matter will be obliged to devote much of their time, during the next five years, to the problems of valuation and so on, when many of them could be better employed in getting on with the job. This, of course, applies to mining engineers, and to all those accustomed to deal with these matters. The procedure of assessing compensation is bound to be lengthy, and the fact that it will reach a higher figure than the Minister anticipates will only add to the difficulties, because it will make the £300 million even more difficult to distribute. Be that as it may, it is a problem we shall face in the future, there being no opportunity at the moment of making any adjustment in the £300 million.

The levy which is being imposed will tend to impede mineral production, which should, of course, be avoided. It is really a tax on mineral production, and we ought to task the Minister to contrive, in his regulations, to get rid of as much uncertainty as possible. I put that point forward most seriously, because uncertainty is the bane of all businesses and all development. The more uncertainties there are, the more difficult it is to proceed. By way of illustration, I would ask the Minister to imagine how difficult it is today to enter into a mining lease, when there is a Clause in this Bill which gives him power to vary the terms of the lease as soon as it is made. He must appreciate that this adds greatly to the difficulties of owners and managers and their legal advisers, when trying to enter into any agreements, or leases. I have had practical experience of that already, and I call the Minister's attention to it.

Again, the complete uncertainty as to the amount of the levy is a very serious difficulty. There was an Amendment, about two hours ago, which seemed to indicate that the Minister would not be able to differentiate in the levy he would charge for the same class of development. That was an Amendment from another place which, I presume, applies to these minerals. The question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Will the rate of levy be the same for the same class of business? Let me take brick shale and brick clay? Will they have to pay the same rate of levy, or will one brickworks have to pay a great deal higher levy than another? That sort of uncertainty makes things difficult for anyone engaged in any enterprise. It is hardly fair for one producer, producing a material, to be subject to a higher levy than another producer who is engaged in producing the same kind of material. I can understand that the levy may be different as between sandstone and limestone, or brick clay and gypsum, but when we are dealing with the same material Will the levy be the same?

I would like to say a word or two about the Minister's analogy; it did not strike me as being altogether justifiable. He was trying to draw an analogy between mineral workings and ripe land. I suggest that existing quarries and mineral workings are a great deal more than dead ripe; they are already being eaten. The Minister suggests that certain quarries and mining operations can be treated as dead-ripe land. Really they are more than dead-ripe; they are already being consumed. It is not a fair analogy to compare them with building development, which is in a different category. They are much more parallel to land which has actually been developed. May I give an example? Let us take a deposit of limestone adjoining a cement works, which may belong to the cement company or to somebody else. If the cement works is likely to continue in considerable production for a number of years, and a large sum of money, possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds, has been spent on it, the limestone "supply to the cement works, in that case, has a very certain sale and a very assured royalty. It is, therefore, a reasonable and sound investment. That partakes more in the nature of land which has been developed, rather than land on which there has been no building.

The Minister pointed out that his difficulty had been one of delimitation. I can only suggest that, in practice, I do not think he will find the problem of delimitation nearly as difficult as it sounds in theory, and that if he has to administer this—as he will have to do under regulations—he will not find it hard to delimit, in every case, an appropriate area for exclusion both from compensation and levy. There are many other problems on which I could touch, but I will not, except to say that what the right hon. Gentleman said shows that he appreciates the difficulties. I hope that in some way or other the House and the Government will find a way of solving this difficult problem.

Photo of Mr Reginald Manningham-Buller Mr Reginald Manningham-Buller , Daventry

I ought to disclose my interest in this matter, and my interest is in the amenities of Northamptonshire, where I have had my home for many years. I do not want to pass this last opportunity we have of discussing this subject without putting on record the fact that, although for two years

the Minister has had in his hands the problem of dealing with surface restoration, he has found time to levy a development charge in respect of mineral extraction without making any provision for the restoration of the surface land. To impose anything in the form of a development charge on mineral extraction without making any provision at all for surface restoration is entirely wrong. If any taxation is to be imposed on mineral extraction it ought to be linked up with the liability which may be imposed for surface restoration, and take into account the restoration. The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring what should be the major problem for his consideration in the Midlands.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 50.

Division No. 351.]AYES.[5.57 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham)Davies, Clement (Montgomery)Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)Davies, Edward (Burslem)Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Davies, Ernest (Enfield)Herbison, Miss M.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Davies, Harold (Leek)Hewitson, Capt. M
Alpass, J. H.Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)Hicks, G.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)Diamond, J.Hobson, C. R
Anderson, F (Whitehaven)Dodds, N. N.Holman, P.
Attewell, H. C.Driberg, T. E. N,House, G.
Austin, H- LewisDugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)Hoy, J.
Awbery, S. S.Dumpleton, C. W.Hubbard, T.
Ayles, W H.Durbin, E. F. M.Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.Dys, S.Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Baird, J.Edelman, M.Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Barstow. P. G.Edwards, John (Blackburn)Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Barton, C,Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Battley, J. R.Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Bechervaise, A. E.Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Irving, W. J.
Benson, G.Evans, John (Ogmore)Janner, B.
Berry, H.Ewart, R.Jay, D. P. T.
Beswick, F.Fernyhough, E.Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)Field, Captain W. J.Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Bing, G. H. CFletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)Keenan, W.
Binns, J.Follick, M.Kenyon, C.
Blackburn, A. R.Foot, M. M.Key, C. W.
Blenkinsop, A.Forman, J. C.King, E. M.
Blyton, W RFraser, T. (Hamilton)Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)Kinley, J.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)Gaitskell, H T N.Lavers, S.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)Gallacher, W.Lawson, Rt Hon. J. J
Bramall, E. A.Ganley, Mrs. C. S.Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Brown, George (Belper)Gibson, C. WLeonard, W,
Brown, T. J. (Ince)Gilzean, A.Leslie, J. R.
Bruce, Major D. W. T.Glanville, J. E. (Consett)Lever, N. H.
Burden, T. W.Goodrich, H E.Levy, B. W.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)Gordon-Walker, P. C.Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Byers, FrankGreenwood, A. W J (Heywood)Lindgren, G. S.
Chamberlain, R. A.Grey, C. F.Lipson, D. L.
Chater, D.Grierson, E.Lyne, A W
Chetwynd, G. R.Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)McAdam, W.
Cobb, F. A.Gunter, R. JMcAllister, G
Collick, P.Guy, W. H.McEntee, V La T
Collindridge, F.Haire, John E. (Wycombe)McGhee, H G
Collins, V. J.Hale, LeslieMack, J. D.
Colman, Miss G. M,Hall, W G.McKay, J (Wallsend)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)Hamilton, Lieut.-Col RMcLeavy, F.
Corvedale, ViscountHannan, W. (Maryhill)MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Cove, W. G.Harrison, J.Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Crossman, R. H. SHastings, Dr. SomervilleMallalieu, J. p. W.
Daines, PHaworth, JMann, Mrs. J
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)Robens, A.Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Marquand, H ARoberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)Robertson, J. J (Berwick)Thurtle, Ernest
Medland, H. M.Rogers, G. H. R.Tiffany, S.
Mitchison, G. RRoss, William (Kilmarnock)Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G
Monslow, WSargood, RUngoed-Thomas, L.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.Scollan, T.Vernon, Maj. W. F
Morley, R.Shackleton, E. A. A.Viant, S. P.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)Sharp, GranvilleWallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)Waliace, H. W. (Walthamstow. E.)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Shurmer, P.Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Moyle, A.Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.Weitzman, D.
Murray, J. D.Silverman, J. (Erdington)Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Naylor, T. E.Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.Westwood, Rt. Hon. J
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Skinnard, F. W.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Noel-Buxton, LadySmith, C (Colchester)Wigg, Col. G. E.
Orbach, M.Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B
Paget, R. T.Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)Wilkes, L.
Palmer, A. M F.Solley, L. J.Wilkins, W. A.
Pargiter, G ASorensen, R. W.Willey, F T. (Sunderland)
Paton, J. (Norwich)Soskice, Maj. Sir FWilley, O. G. (Cleveland)
Popplewell, E.Sparks, J. A.Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Porter, G. (Leeds)Stephen, C.Williams, W R. (Heston)
Price, M. PhilipsStrauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)Willis, E.
Proctor, W. T.Stubbs, A. E.Wills, Mrs. E. A
Pryde, D. J.Swingler, S,Wise, Major F. J
Pursey, Cmdr H.Sylvester, G. O.Woods, G. S
Ranger, J.Symonds, A. L.Wyatt, W.
Rankin, J.Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)Yates, V. F.
Rees-Williams, D. RTaylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Reeves, J.Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)Zilliacus, K.
Reid, T. (Swindon)Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. MThomas, George (Car'diff)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Snow and Mr. Simmons.
NOES.
Amory, D. HeathcoatLloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.Low, Brig. A R W.Strauss, H G. (English Universities)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.Lucas, Major Sir J.Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.Sutcliffe, H.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Manningham-Buller, R. EThornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. TMellor, Sir J.Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.
Carson, EMolson, A. H. E.Touche, G. C.
Challen, C.Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)Vane, W. M. F.
Channon, H.Neven-Spence, Sir B.Walker-Smith, D.
Clarke, Col. R. S.Nicholson, G.Ward, Hon. G. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Nield, B. (Chester)Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Crowder, Capt. John E.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Drayson, G B.Orr-Ewing, I. LWilliams, C. (Torquay)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. WalterRaikes, H. V.Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)Rayner, Brig. R.
Gage, C.Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lambert, Hon. G.Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. KSavory, Prof D. L

Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 38, leave out Clause 83, and insert new-Clause E [Land held for charitable purposes].

Lords Amendment: In page 97, line 21, at end, insert: