CLAUSE 41.—(Interpretation of Part I.) (Hansard, 5 February 1941)

§ Sir H. Webbe
I beg to move, in page 30, line 7, at the end, to insert: (b) in relation to land comprised in any such hereditament as aforesaid the valuation of which in a valuation list under the Rating and Valuation Acts, 1925 to 1940, or the Rating and Valuation (Metropolis) Acts, 1869 to 1940, is ascertained by reference to the accounts, receipts or profits of the undertaking carried on therein, the expression 'land' includes all mains, pipes, lines, apparatus, plant and machinery comprised in that hereditament. I move this Amendment on behalf of my lion. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in order to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to look into the definition of "land" in this Clause from the point of view of public utility companies. If that definition is to be 1034 satisfactory, some such extension as is suggested here is required. There appears to be some doubt among public utility companies whether they would not, under the present definition, find themselves in difficulty in knowing under which part of the Bill they come. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into the point, I shall not press the Amendment.

§ Sir K. Wood
I will certainly do so.

§ Sir G. Courthope
I beg to move, in page 30, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c).
I move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spells). Paragraph (c) excludes from the meaning of "land" all crops and trees, although some trees are included whose value for shelter or amenity purposes is greater than their value for selling. It is the peculiar fact that woodlands are excluded from this part of the Bill. If the Bill passes as it is drawn, land will have an entirely different interpretation under Part 1 from the interpretation which it will have under Part 2. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think I have wasted the time of the Committee in asking for an explanation.

§ Sir K. Wood
The effect of this Amendment is that it is intended to bring in under Part 1 of the Bill all crops and trees. That is our reading of it. Such an arrangement will result in the farmer and agriculturist getting almost unwarranted good value for his contribution. The contribution is fixed at 6d. where the land consists of open land and is not likely to suffer damage through bombing. It is difficult to see how one can justify claims arising in respect of a field of ripe corn or a plantation of timber where the damage may, in fact, run into a very considerable sum. This type of property, crops and trees grown for timber, will be covered by the business scheme under Part 2 of the Bill and I suggest that is a more equitable basis than the one proposed, which would hardly be fair to other contributors.

§ Brigadier-General Clifton Brown (Newbury)
I would like to draw the Chancellor's attention to an anomaly that occurs as regards my own property. I have a hedgerow of trees and a young plantation which has been bombed. I am not saying that for these trees we should 1035 pay only 6d., but it seems rather ridiculous to value the whole of one shell-hole or one tree in one way and something in another way. Either trees are crops and should be valued as such or they are not.

§ Earl Winterton
This point is one of enormous importance not only to private but to public owners of timber. As I understand it my right hon. Friend says that it will be possible to raise the whole question of insurance of valuable timber when we come to the other part of the Bill on another day.

§ Sir K. Wood
Yes, Sir.

§ Sir G. Courthope
I thank my right hon. Friend for his explanation and I will not press the Amendment.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 30, line 21, at the end to insert: 'local authority' means the council of a county, county borough or county district or the common council of the City of London or the council of a metropolitan borough. I am sure we ought to define a local authority but I am not sure whether this is the time to do it. I see that the Chancellor has an Amendment down under which there is a definition of a local authority, and so long as it is included somewhere I have no objection.

§ Sir K. Wood
I will certainly look into that.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Will it apply to a local authority as well?

§ Sir K. Wood
I am sure that all important bodies will be included.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 31, line 9, at the end, to insert: 'town and country planning' includes planning, the construction or improvement of roads, the development of frontages, building restrictions, control of the use of land and the preservation of amenities. This Amendment deals with the interpretation of "town and country planning." What the County Councils' Association wish is that the Commission shall have the right to consider, under town and country planning, such subjects as 1036 the improvement of roads, the development of frontages, building restrictions, and so on, all of which are obligations placed on the local authorities by the House.

§ Captain Crookshank
Apparently the County Councils' Association are mistaken in this matter. This Amendment is not necessary. In its attempt to define "town and country planning" it gives a much less wide definition than the accepted one, which is that given in Section 1 of the Act of 1932. If this Amendment were included in the Bill, it would exclude the wider subjects. All the words of the Amendment and much more are already included in the definition in the Act of 1932.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Whether we were mistaken or not, we have achieved the object of getting a definition from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I move this Motion in order that, before proceeding to a discussion of the Amendments to Clause 42, I may ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have made very good progress with the Bill and have reached the end of the first Part. Those for whom I speak have no objection to going on with the discussion of Part II of the Bill now, but I think it would be the general wish of the Committee that we should not to-day start a discussion on Clause 47, on which the question of the voluntary principle for the insurance of chattels arises, and which I think the Committee would wish to discuss at greater length. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor whether, if the Committee should reach the end of Clause 46 before the time of rising, he will agree at that stage to move to report Progress, so that Clause 47 may be left to a later occasion?

§ Sir K. Wood
I have consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Boa rd of Trade, who, I am glad to say, is particularly concerned with Part II of the Bill, concerning the very reasonable suggestion 1037 made by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). The matter of principle in Clause 47 is a very important one, and I should be quite willing at that stage to move that the Chairman do report Progress, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. May I take the opportunity of thanking the Committee for the progress we have made?

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.