§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Community Land Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses; Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 9; Schedule 1; Clause 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 to 17; Schedule 3; Clause 18; Schedule 4; Clause 19; Schedule 5; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 6; Clauses 22 to 25; Schedule 7; Clauses 26 to 49; Schedule 8; Clauses 50 to 58; Schedules 9 and 10; and new Schedules.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)
On this motion, without wishing to detain the House unduly—because we have a great deal of business to get through—may I register a strong protest at the way in which the House has been treated by the Government in the manner in which they have arranged their business concerning this Bill.
We completed the Committee stage on 15th July. Between 15th July and the date on which we rose for the Summer Recess 257 amendments and new Clauses were put down on the Notice Paper. Those of us who are concerned with this matter spent as much of the recess as we could studying those amendments, which relate to a matter which is highly complicated and technical.
Ten days ago the Minister in charge of the Bill made announcements relating to various other amendments which he proposed to table for our consideration. In fact, 90 new Government amendments have been tabled and 25 of those which were on the Paper when we rose for the recess have been withdrawn.
The Minister has been kind to this extent: he gave us the opportunity during the weekend of studying notes which he had prepared on the meaning of those amendments. But the time was far too short to enable us to consider matters of this nature which, as I said, are highly technical and complex.
It is quite wrong that the House should have to deal with a Bill of this kind on the very first day after the recess. The Opposition have not been given the full opportunity which they need to consider, 867 examine and probe and to ask the Government to state their intentions concerning these amendments, and whether they carry out undertakings which were given to us in Committee about new proposals which were to be brought forward.
It has been impossible for us to discharge our duty properly. Therefore, we must apologise to the country at large if during today and tomorrow we do not bring to light all the matters that should be brought to light. Ultimately those who will suffer—because we in this House are accustomed to putting up with a certain amount of inconvenience and late hours—are the people of this country who will have to live under this ill-considered and ill-judged legislation.
The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr, John Silkin)
It would be hypocritical of me not to agree that all Oppositions feel that they have not had enough time in which to study amendments. I have often raised points of order on this sort of matter. I remember that when the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) gave us 630 amendments one hour before we were due to consider them, some of my hon. Friends got very hot under the collar.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
Could the right hon. Gentleman say when that was? One hour before they were considered, indeed! They were on the Order Paper for months.
The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten. It was one day in July—I cannot remember which day, but he can look it up. It was probably 17th July 1972—I would not swear to the date—when 630 Lords amendments were brought to this House. We were shown them one hour before, and many of them had great substance in them.
I am commiserating with the right hon. Gentleman. He should not try to prevent my commiserating with him. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), remembers that during consideration of the Water Resources Bill in the last Government, and in the Local Government Bill of 1974, complaints were made about the lateness of amendments.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes) indicated assent.
Having said that, may I explain the situation concerning this group of amendments?
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said, that 90 amendments were put down by the Government 10 days ago, but half of those are minor drafting amendments or amendments dealing with very small issues which meet the Opposition case. In addition to that, 15 amendments deal with charities, blight and the penalty in Clause 24. The point about all these is that I think by general agreement the Report and Third Reading stages of this Bill were postponed from before the recess until after the recess. As a result, these amendments, which would have been dealt with in another place, have been brought to this House, and I should have thought that this House would welcome that fact rather than have those amendments go to another place.
There are 19 amendments on exceptcd development—certainly a major change, but we did our best to help the Opposition by giving advance notice of our amendments in the September document—and, finally, there are the accounts amendments, of which there are 10. They are all part of the mechanics and designed to fit the legislative provisions to the accounts which we now think we need.
The hon. Member for Hornsey underestimates himself and his colleagues. If they want to make a complaint, it should be directed at the fact that on Friday the Opposition tabled 20 amendments. Those amendments have nothing to do with late Government amendments but could have been tabled last July. There are amendments to leave out Clauses 13, 27, 28, 42, 44 and 52. Therefore, if the complaint is that the Government's amendments are late, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a strong complaint against his hon. Friends.
§ Mr. Rossi
The right hon. Gentleman knowns very well that in normal circumstances the Opposition wait for the Government to table their amendments on Report to see the extent to which they carry out the undertakings given in Committee. It is only at that point that 869 the Opposition can deal with Government amendments. We did the best we could in July and tabled amendments then. It was only when we were in Blackpool that the Government started messing around and sought to deal with matters at this stage.
§ Mr. John Silkin
The hon. Gentleman knows his own business better than I, but the fact remains that the examples I have quoted were related to the Bill as proposed to be amended—namely, the 160 or so amendments tabled last July. They have nothing whatever to do with the Government amendments tabled 10 days ago.
§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
I do not know this Bill very well since I was not on the Committee but, having listened to the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the Minister, I am appalled at the cavalier way in which the Government are treating legislation.
Those of us who have been in our constituencies in the recess will know of the growing mood among those who have to administer the spate of Acts of Parliament produced by the present Government. The complications and intricacies are causing near to a refusal to operate Bills churned out by this House. The Government by pushing out a Bill of this sort, in face of the mounting opposition throughout the country, take no account of the extraordinarily ill-prepared nature of the legislation in the first place.
I understand that 250 amendments were tabled in July and another 90 during the recess. Why was it necessary to table so many amendments in the first place? Why were so many points conceded to my hon. Friend if the Bill was properly thought out in the first place? Why were there so many drafting points to be made? Why were there so many points of substance?
The Government must realise that those who have to administer this legislation cannot take this barrage of complicated clauses, which are far-reaching, penal and thoroughly tiresome in effect. If the Government wish to legislate on this subject, they should first consult all those who will have to administer legislation. They should also consult the Opposition, because that Opposition will repeal the 870 Bill anyway. We shall then try to find a solution to the problem of land that will be acceptable, not just to the narrow interests of the Labour Party but to my hon. Friends, the local authorities, the surveyors, the accountants and all those who will be concerned in administering land use both now and in the future.
If the Government believe that the way in which they should govern is to produce all these doctrinaire and extravagant measures which matter to nobody but themselves and which relate only to their wretched manifesto, they should think again. When will they get to the end of their desperate manifesto? It is a document that is hated throughout the country and it is now groaning its weary way through Parliament. There is not a citizen who would not be delighted if the Government were to abandon the manifesto, which is proving the most tedious obligation which any Government have had to face.
There is, however, a lesson to be learned. We should not legislate by producing a Bill which is so riddled with faults that right and proper complaints have to be made at this stage, and a Bill which has incurred 300 Government amendments. Even after those amendments are included in the Bill, the local authorities believe that the measure is practically unworkable. The Opposition cannot possibly tolerate such a Bill becoming a permanent feature of the statute book. It is a Bill which will eventually be torn up. Today's happenings amount to irresponsible political action of the kind which brings the House into disrepute. It will force my hon. Friends to do something about the situation at a stage in the future. It is a total waste of parliamentary time and of the authority of Parliament if we seek to push through such an ill-thought-out and half-baked measure.
§ Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)
I support what has been said by my hon. Friends. The Bill in form has been condemned by a Committee of Justice as being unconstitutional. Certainly in form we agree that it is intolerable.
As a member of the Standing Committee, I received certain papers in explanation of the amendments. I wish to ask whether other hon. Members who were not members of the Committee also 871 received those papers. If they have not those documents before them, I believe that they will find the amendments incomprehensible.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
Did my hon. Friend receive those papers while he was a member of the Standing Committee, or after it had ceased sitting? Therefore, is he in the same position as other hon. Members who were not members of the Committee?
§ Mr. Clegg
I received the papers after the Committee had finished its sittings, and indeed in the last few days. I understand that some of this material has been published in the Press. I believe that it is wrong for the House to consider the Bill until every Member has been given the explanatory documents. It is disgraceful that we should have to consider this Bill in such a way because this may well set a precedent for the future.
The Minister claimed that many of the amendments will improve the Bill and make it more to our liking. Its cosmetic effect is as effective as putting face powder on a pox-ridden harlot.
§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
The Minister can hardly expect the House to have been very pleased with his reply. The House does not have to be back for very long before the Government begin once again to indulge in the rather bad habits which they developed last July.
Our serious complaint on this occasion is that we are now facing an immensely technical and complex measure on a subject with which, admittedly, no Government have dealt successfully since the war. The measure before us has now been so tremendously amended that it is difficult to assess the effect of each individual amendment, and indeed it is almost impossible to assess the effect upon the fabric of the Bill as a whole.
It would appear that the Government's approach to many of the defects in the Bill—defects which they admit—is based on the attitude that, having got rid of the tiresome ordeal of parliamentary examination, they will deal with the matter by regulation. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for power to undertake various matters by regulation. 872 If the Minister wishes to intervene at this point, I shall gladly give way.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. John Silkin
If the right hon. Gentleman cares to remain during the debate on new Clause 2, he may find the position, which is not as he says it is, very clearly set out.
§ Mr. Peyton
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is doing himself justice or treating the House fairly. He should explain the number of instances in which he is now asking to be given powers in order to correct defects which are admittedly in the Bill. That is our understanding, although it is true that we have not had long to consider the matter.
§ Mr. John Silkin
I do not think that starting to debate new Clause 2 and the Government amendments associated with it on this motion would, Mr. Speaker, if I read your mind correctly, be in order. In any event, it would seem to me an illogical way to proceed.
§ Mr. Peyton
I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says. I take it that he is now saying that the new powers to amend the Bill afterwards which he now requires from the House arise out of new Clause 2. Is that correct? That is what he is saying as I understand it. He is saying that he does not want now to debate new Clause 2.
The right hon. Gentleman can hardly blame the Opposition if our understanding of this immensely complicated cobweb of a measure is slightly deficient. He has not given the House a chance and, by his present demeanour, apparently does not show any of the understanding of Parliament's difficulties which might be expected of a Minister who normally behaves with reasonable courtesy.
From our point of view, the right hon. Gentleman's cavalier treatment of Parliament, to use the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is a very bad example, and it comes at a time when all too many people take every opportunity lightly to deride and mock Parliament. It would be a pity if the Government then set a bad example and continuously revealed their own contempt for Parliament by this slipshod and sloppy 873 behaviour. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to mark their disapproval by dividing against the motion.
§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
An aspect has just emerged which I find profoundly disturbing. Apparently, the Government have issued to some hon. Members but not to others explanatory memoranda on the amendments. I have just made an inquiry, and these explanatory memoranda, I find, have not been supplied to members of a Standing Committee while that Committee was functioning; the Government have chosen to supply them to certain hon. Members who sat on a Standing Committee which once existed but does not exist now. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the same explanatory memoranda, which have been sent unsolicited to certain hon. Members but not to others, are made available in the Vote Office for any other Members of the House before the proceedings to which this motion refers take place?
§ Mr. John Silkin
Perhaps I can make a correction. The hon. Gentleman has used the word "unsolicited". When the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) saw me last week, before he went to a northern watering place, he asked me, as he well knows, if I would supply these notes on amendments. I was reluctant to do so, as the hon. Member for Hornsey also well knows, but he pressed me and I agreed. If this is the way the Opposition intend to use this concession, I shall strongly advise my right hon. Friends never to give in again.
§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
The sort of list we have for the continuation of the Bill—completely covering two sides of a foolscap sheet—is such that unless explanatory memoranda are available to hon. Members the House will be in chaos. To expect the House to wade through the list of amendments and new clauses selected by the Chair without explanatory memoranda from the Government is to treat it with complete contempt. We should bear in mind the short time since many of these amendments and new clauses were tabled, and that to be meaningful they have to be fitted in, read into the Bill, to see what they mean. That 874 is the whole purpose of explanatory memoranda. When a Bill is first printed, after First Reading and before Second Reading the House gets an explanatory memorandum so that, when it comes to debate the measure on Second Reading, it is aware of the purposes of the clauses.
In this case, we have two sides of foolscap paper containing nothing but the numbers of the amendments selected, and surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that in two days the House can do justice to all these amendments without explanatory memoranda. The only alternative is for the right hon. Gentleman to give a lengthy explanation of each and every amendment and new clause and not to move any of them formally. But surely it would save him a lot of time if he made explanatory memoranda more generally available, because in that way, among other things, some amendments could be taken formally and those interested in them could read the explanation.
Surely that is the proper way to get complicated legislation dealt with on the Floor of the House. This is a serious point. If hon. Members who are specifically interested in certain parts of the Bill but do not have the same degree of interest in other parts are to find their way through what is by any standard an absolute nightmare of amendments and new clauses, they must have explanatory memoranda.
§ Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)
I am sorry that the Minister reacted so sharply when my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made his observations. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that he was doing a favour to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), but material of this kind is not for the edification of a few but should be available to all hon. Members on both sides of the House in order that there can be intelligent debate. Surely it would be best now for the House to adjourn to enable the Minister to arrange for the distribution of this material and for us to have just a little time to look at it.
§ Question put:—875
§ The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 170.
|Division No. 329.]||AYES||[4.10 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Forrester, John||Millan, Bruce|
|Allaun, Frank||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Anderson, Donald||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)|
|Archer, Peter||Freeson, Reginald||Molloy, William|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Moonman, Eric|
|Ashley, Jack||George, Bruce||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Ginsburg, David||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Gould, Bryan||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Bates, Alf||Gourlay, Harry||Moyle, Roland|
|Bean, R. E.||Graham, Ted||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Newens, Stanley|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Grant, John (Islington C)||Noble, Mike|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Grocott, Bruce||Oakes, Gordon|
|Bishop, E. S.||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Ogden, Eric|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Hardy, Peter||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Boardman, H.||Harper, Joseph||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian|
|Booth, Albert||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Ovenden, John|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Hatton, Frank||Owen, Dr David|
|Bradley, Tom||Hayman, Mrs Helene||Padley, Walter|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Palmer, Arthur|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Heffer, Eric S.||Park, George|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Hooley, Frank||Parker, John|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Horam, John||Parry, Robert|
|Buchan, Norman||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Pendry, Tom|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Perry, Ernest|
|Campbell, Ian||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Phipps, Dr Colin|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hunter, Adam||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Cant, R. B.||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Radice, Giles|
|Carter, Ray||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Janner, Greville||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cartwright, John||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||John, Brynmor||Rooker, J. W.|
|Cohen, Stanley||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Roper, John|
|Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Concannon, J. D.||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Corbett, Robin||Judd, Frank||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Kaufman, Gerald||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Kelley, Richard||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Kinnock, Neil||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Cryer, Bob||Lambie, David||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Lamborn, Harry||Sillars, James|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Lamond, James||Silverman, Julius|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Small, William|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Deakins, Eric||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Snape, Peter|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Lipton, Marcus||Spearing, Nigel|
|Delargy, Hugh||Litterick, Tom||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Lomas, Kenneth||Stallard, A. W.|
|Doig, Peter||Loyden, Eddie||Stoddart, David|
|Dormand, J. D.||Luard, Evan||Stonehouse, Rt Hon John|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Stott, Roger|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Strang, Gavin|
|Dunn, James A.||McCartney, Hugh||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Dunnett, Jack||McElhone, Frank||Swain, Thomas|
|Eadie, Alex||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Edelman, Maurice||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Edge, Geoff||Mackenzie, Gregor||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Mackintosh, John P.||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Maclennan, Robert||Tierney, Sydney|
|English, Michael||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Tinn, James|
|Ennals, David||McNamara, Kevin||Tomlinson, John|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Magee, Bryan||Torney, Tom|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Urwin, T. W.|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Marks, Kenneth||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Marquand, David||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Flannery, Martin||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Ward, Michael|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon)||Meacher, Michael||Watkins, David|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Watkinson, John|
|Ford, Ben||Mikardo, Ian||Weetch, Ken|
|Weitzman, David||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Wellbeloved, James||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)||young, David (Bolton E)|
|White, Frank R. (Bury)||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|White, James (Pollok)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Whitehead, Phillip||Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)||Mr. Donald Coleman and|
|Whitlock, William||Wise, Mrs Audrey||Miss Margaret Jackson.|
|Adley, Robert||Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Nott, John|
|Alison, Michael||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Onslow, Cranley|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Hawkins, Paul||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally|
|Banks, Robert||Hayhoe, Barney||Page, John (Harrow West)|
|Beith, A. J.||Henderson, Douglas||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Bell, Ronald||Heseltine, Michael||Pardoe, John|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Higgins, Terence L.||Penhaligon, David|
|Benyon, W.||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Howell, David (Guildford)||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Biffen, John||Hurd, Douglas||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Raison, Timothy|
|Blaker, Peter||Jessel, Toby||Rathbone, Tim|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Brittan, Leon||Knight, Mrs Jill||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Brotherton, Michael||Knox, David||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Lamont, Norman||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Lane, David||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Scott, Nicholas|
|Budgen, Nick||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Lawrence, Ivan||Shersby, Michael|
|Carr, Rt Hon Robert||Lawson, Nigel||Sims, Roger|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Clegg, Walter||Lloyd, Ian||Sproat, Iain|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Loveridge, John||Stainton, Keith|
|Cope, John||Luce, Richard||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Costain, A. P.||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Crawford, Douglas||McCrindle, Robert||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)|
|Critchley, Julian||Macfarlane, Neil||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Crouch, David||MacGregor, John||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Madel, David||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Durant, Tony||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Marten, Neil||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Eyre, Reginald||Mates, Michael||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Fairgrieve. Russell||Maude, Angus||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Fell, Anthony||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Mawby, Ray||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Wakeham, John|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Mayhew, Patrick||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Wall, Patrick|
|Fox Marcus||Mills, Peter||Warren, Kenneth|
|Freud, Clement||Moate, Roger||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Fry, Peter||Molyneaux, James||Wells, John|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)||Montgomery, Fergus||Welsh, Andrew|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Moore, John (Croydon C)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Goodhew, Victor||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Gray, Hamish||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)|
|Grylls, Michael||Mudd, David||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Hall, Sir John||Neave, Airey||Mr. Cecil Parkinson and|
|Hannam, John||Nelson, Anthony||Mr. Michael Roberts.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Community Land Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses; Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 9; Schedule 1; Clause 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 to 17; Schedule 3; Clause 18; Schedule 4; Clause 19; Schedule 5; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 6; Clauses 22 to 25; Schedule 7; Clauses 26 to 49; Schedule 8; Clauses 50 to 58: Schedules 9 and 10; and new Schedules.