CLAUSE 2.—(Power to purchase land in areas of extensive war damage or needed for replacements: authorisation under special procedure.) (Hansard, 4 October 1944)

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "replacements," and to insert: re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space. This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out from "order," to 1022 "him," in line 13, and to insert "submitted to the Minister and made by."
I apologise to the Committee if I have misunderstood this, but on the face of it, there seems to be something wrong with the drafting. If I may, I will read the words of the Clause that seem to me relevant to the point. It provides that: … a local planning authority may be authorised … to purchase compulsorily. … by an order made and submitted to the Minister—presumably made by the planning authority but, subject to correction, I should have thought that nobody but the Minister would make the order, and that either my Amendment or something with a similar intention is necessary at this point.

§ The Attorney-General
In this we are following the terminology to be found in the Local Government Act, 1933, which is generally applicable to such a case, that is to say, the local authority would draw up the instrument which does not become effective until it has had the sanction of the Minister. I can quite see the arguments that could be put forward for the terminology which my hon. Friend thinks would be more appropriate, but I do not think there is anything wrong with the terminology which we have used. The order is made by the local authority though it requires confirmation by a higher authority, and I think that is a perfectly natural use of the English language. I think it would, in any event, cause confusion to lawyers if we adopted in this Bill a different phraseology from that used in the past for an exactly similar state of affairs. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that, but if he is not, I would recommend the Committee to leave the Clause as it is.

§ Mr. Cocks (Broxtowe)
In other words, the Attorney-General says that the argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is a donnish point.
Amendment negatived.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
May I suggest that, in moving his Amendment, the hon. Member for West Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Nunn) also deals with the point raised by his other Amendment to line 37, namely, to leave out "or under Subsection (2) of this Section"

§ Mr. Nunn
I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, leave out Sub-section (2).
My second Amendment is consequential. My reason in bringing forward this Amendment is to try to secure what is the main object of the Bill, namely, that there shall be speed in operation, and also that the planning shall be complete. We have machinery under Clause 1 which should cover all that is necessary, and under Sub-section (2) it seems it must inevitably happen that a good deal of piecemeal and haphazard work must be done, that hurried planning will take place, that afterwards a good deal of that planning will have to be changed, and that, in the end, the effective planning will be delayed. It will be Observed that this Sub-section says that this particularly quick action may be taken whatever may be decided as to the manner in which the land is to be laid out. It is quite obviously foreseen that the plans may not be at all full when this application is made to the Minister. Speed, in my opinion, and in the opinion of very many Members of the Committee, is necessary, although I must confess that yesterday a number of hon. Members, especially on the other side, seemed to be arguing in favour of having rather lengthy proceedings.
However, leaving that point, if speed is necessary it seems to be desirable that we should not do anything which would make it necessary for planning authorities to go back on their first decision in order to make up their minds as to what they want to do with the land when they have it. There is another point. The Minister is required to be satisfied that the land acquired by an authority will be required for dealing satisfactorily with the damage. It appears that in spite of this being a very quick method it is necessary to go to the Minister. If it is to go to the Minister under Clause 1, I would like to know what procedure he will adopt under this Sub-section. What are the inquiries he will have to make? If they are the same as under Clause 1 there does not seem any necessity for this Sub-section.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because I think that in the opening stages, especially, of our post-war task of reconstruction the powers asked for will be abundantly justified and necessary. There are areas in our bombed cities 1024 where there could be no conceivable question that the land must be publicly owned if the work of re-housing and re-establishing our people is to proceed at the earliest possible moment. It is in respect of these areas only that the exceptional powers are required. In general, this power will be used in the early days of reconstruction. There are many areas, especially in the East End of London, where there are at present no dwelling houses that are habitable, or very few which have miraculously escaped damage, and where the rest of the land is encumbered by piles of rubble, where operations cannot start until power to enter upon the land has been granted. By the words of the Subsection the Minister is strictly enjoined to have regard to a number of very stringent considerations before he uses this power, which, I beg my hon. Friend to believe, is abundantly necessary. As to the inquiries which the Minister will make, they will be only such as will enable him to discharge a public duty in certifying that the land is of such a character and that there is no question about it being publicly acquired.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
This applies to proceedings of acquisition under Part 1 of the First Schedule, and this procedure will mean that a planning authority starts off with an immediate order which has to be confirmed by the Minister who will, at the same time, consider objections. In the First Schedule it states that these three steps can be taken at the same time. That is a very dangerous proceeding. How can all these steps take place at the same time? How can there be any time for objections? Perhaps the matter can be more fully discussed when we come to the Schedules.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
In view of what the Minister has said, I would be glad if he could say something on why this accelerated procedure is to be allowed to remain in existence for five years from the commencement of the Act.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think the question of five years comes in on a later Amendment.

§ Mr. Morrison
I think it would help my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) if I said a word on this matter. It is true that we could discuss it more fully when we come to the Schedules, but its purpose 1025 is that if you are to ask for a Clause 1 declaration—which you do not ask for if you are to apply Sub-section (2)—you can make application for a purchase order under Clause 1.
Amendment negatived.
3.45 P.m.
Amendment made: In page 4, line 27, leave out "within," and insert "before the expiration of."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

§ Sir J. Mellor
I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, leave out "five", and to insert "two."
We had a long discussion yesterday on Clause 1 on a rather similar Amendment designed to reduce from five years to two the period during which a planning authority might make application for an order under Clause 1, and, therefore, I do not think I need develop the argument again at any length. I would only say that in this case, under Clause 2, I think the argument is even greater for a reduction from five years to two than it was under Clause 1, because the whole object of the procedure in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 is speed. It is specially expedited procedure in very special circumstances. In those circumstances the claim which we make, that the period within which an order authorising compulsory purchase can be submitted to the Minister, should be reduced from five years to two from the commencement of the Act, is one which I hope the Minister will meet.

§ Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)
On a point of Order. Did we not debate the question of five years or two years yesterday?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Yes, but not on this Clause. It involves a separate point here.

§ Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)
I support the Amendment, and I base my argument on the Minister's words in defending the retention of the Clause. He said it was intended as an assurance that it would be used at an early stage when the public interest would be threatened by delay. Hon. Members opposite have said there does not seem to be any need for this long period of five years. It is for that reason that I submit we should accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I am impressed by the force of the argument which both 1026 my hon. Friends have made that I stated that the intention is to use these exceptional powers in the early years of reconstruction. If the thing is urgent and it is clear that the land ought to be acquired, it is in the early stages that that would be most readily ascertainable, but if I accepted the Amendment now I might, before the Bill emerges from Committee, find that the powers for which I have asked for expediting public inquiries and other phases in the procedure had disappeared and gone away, and I should be left without any power to fall back on this Clause in a clear and obvious case. If the suggestion that I am making later on for expediting the procedure of public inquiry and hearing, and various other matters of that sort, is acceded to, and if I emerge with the power of acquiring these bombed sites accelerated to the extent that I may think necessary relatively intact, I should be prepared to direct the attention of local authorities to this urgent procedure provided by Sub-section (2) to be used in the first two years. I think that is fair because, if I have the accelerated procedure with regard to public inquiries and other matters, the fact that in the third and fourth years that procedure would have to be resorted to would not be such a bar to them, but until I have it I cannot give up the five year procedure for urgent cases. I think that is a reasonable attitude for the Minister charged with this responsibility and, if my hon. Friend will take that into account and withdraw his Amendment, I undertake, if I emerge from the Committee stage with the powers that I am asking for accelerated procedure and public inquiry, I will introduce on Report an Amendment giving effect to the shorter time.

§ Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern)
I hope the Minister will be careful about this because no one knows the circumstances in which the war will end. Local authorities are working with very amateur staffs—some are really working with school girls—and it may be that some of their normal expert staffs will never come back at all. In the building up of new staffs to deal with much of the complicated work that will come after the war it may be that six or seven months or more will be occupied getting their own shop in order to get on with their job. If the Minister allows this to be cut down, 1027 he may find himself eventually without the powers to do the very job that it is wanted for. Further, it is in great areas, where the job is enormous, that two years might be too short a period. It looks a long time but, when you are starting to get things into order after a war, time flies very quickly and, if too many precautions are put in and more and more delays are going to be imposed, it may render the whole Bill null and void.

§ Sir Harold Webbe (Westminster, Abbey)
I do not want to press the Minister to accept the Amendment—on the contrary I think it would be a mistake to accept it—but the case that he made puzzled me somewhat because I had seen in the Clause a purpose to which he did not allude at all. I felt very much for those who pleaded yesterday for a shorter period of uncertainty, within which authorities might be expected to make their plans. I was glad the Minister agreed to reconsider that and to try to devise some method of bringing pressure to bear on authorities to reach finality at the earliest moment. As I see it, the provisions of this Sub-section must run for the same period as those for the preparation and the making of an order under Clause 1. I had imagined that the Sub-section was designed to meet the kind of case where an authority is engaged in preparing for submission under Clause 1 a plan for the redevelopment of an extensive area and perhaps before the plan can be submitted an opportunity might occur for the acquisition of some piece of property within the area which quite clearly would be required in any replanning and, unless they took advantage of that opportunity—the falling in of a lease or something of that kind—the public interest might be damaged. If it is intended to meet that purpose, it seems to me that the power must rest with the authorities for the whole time that they are allowed to occupy in preparing the plan.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I am puzzled by the Minister's observations. As I understand it there can be no public inquiry when the procedure under Clause 2 is being used, and I do not quite see the force of his argument that he cannot cut down the period unless he gets his way with regard to the public inquiry under the new Schedule. It seems to me that the question of a public inquiry does not 1028 affect the question of time. Within two years every application, and every order on that application, should be made. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether these two matters are not really disconnected and whether he cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Morrison
It is impossible, by making an artificial and illogical distinction, to separate the two methods of procedure. The whole question of procedure hangs together. That is to say, it is to the extent that I can succeed, with the consent of the Committee, in simplifying and expediting the other methods of procedure, that I am prepared to abandon these exceptional powers. The two things hang together and I cannot separate them artificially.

§ Mr. Woodburn
What is the disadvantage of having five years?

§ Mr. Morrison
Assuming we have the expedited period for the normal circumstance, it is better, if the circumstances justify it, that a project for redevelopment should pass through the mind of the local authorities concerned. If we get the procedure simplified, there will not be so much necessity for that period.
Amendment negatived.
Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 27, leave out "commencement of this Act," and insert: date appointed under Sub-section (1) of the preceding Section. In line 33, leave out "replacements," and insert: re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which I desire to move, as follows: In page 4, line 38, leave out from "of" to "if" in line 39, and insert: "one year after the date of an order under Section one." 1029 That is the same as the Amendment on the Paper except for the last words.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. and gallant Member has handed in a manuscript Amendment in different terms and he must move that. Perhaps he will read out the Amendment he wishes to move.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
The Amendment I have read is the one I desire to move.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Amend-which the hon. and gallant Member handed in goes beyond that.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
I went to the Chair to correct the Amendment I handed in, and you, Mr. Williams, said that you had not got it.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have got it now and the hon. and gallant Member can move only that Amendment. He cannot move an abbreviated edition of it. He either moves the Amendment as he handed it to me, or he cannot move it at all.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
I hope that on future occasions when I go to the Chair I shall be given more opportunity to alter an Amendment than I have been given on this occasion. I propose to move the Amendment as handed in, that is, to leave out from "of" to "if" in line 39 and to insert: one year after the date of the order under section one, or after such date as the Minister may appoint as being the date when the making of such application has been made.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is not the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman handed in. He really must stick to his Amendment; otherwise, I must pass on to another Amendment. Perhaps I had better read it out. It is, in page 4, line 38, to leave out from "of" to "if" in line 39, and to insert: one year after the date of an order under section one or three years after such date as the Minister may by order appoint as the date when the making of an application under section one has become practicable.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out from "of" to "if", in line 39, and to insert: one year after the date of an order under Section one or three years after such date as the Minister may by order appoint as the date when the making of an application under Section one has become practicable. 1030 The object of this Amendment—

Viscountess Astor
Is delay.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
That is just what it is not. The object of the Amendment is to stop delay. Perhaps the Noble Lady will pay a little more attention and be a little less critical. An Order may declare that the land is subject to purchase, but it is not obligatory in any way. That places the person concerned in an unfortunate position. Five years, if that remains the period in which an application can be made, might go by without any safeguards about anything being done with regard to the land. The owner will not know whether it is to be purchased, and he will not be able to do anything with it. The land will be stabilised, and I suggest that this is too long a period in which he should be kept in suspense. The object of the Amendment is to shorten the period so as to bring it down to 12 months in which the planning authority must say definitely whether they are going to acquire the land.

Major Lloyd
I have listened carefully to my hon. and gallant Friend, and I cannot see any difference between his Amendment and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—in page 4, line 38, leave out from "of," to "if," in line 39, and insert: "one year from the date of the making of such order." Everything that he said is what we would have said had we been able to speak to that Amendment.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I must confess to a little bewilderment as to the precise terms which my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment now assumes.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
The right hon. Gentleman is really very largely the cause of it, because of the uncertainty of the period.

§ Mr. Morrison
The Bill contains a provision for the limitation of these powers which, in contrast to the recent speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, is both clear and convincing. It makes the period run for five years. I did gather that my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that is too long and that he wants it to run for one year from the date of the 1031 Order. I think that would be too short. It is really a point that we have discussed in the Committee time and time again. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not ask me to accept an Amendment with the terms of which I am not properly acquainted yet, and the effect of which would be to render the period in which the local authority would have to execute its task too short.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
It may be convenient to discuss the Amendment, with the terms of which I am not fully familiar, by referring to the one upon the Order Paper in my name, to which reference has already been made.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That Amendment has not been selected, and so we cannot discuss it.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller
I would like to draw attention on that Amendment to a defect in the Bill. If, towards the end of the five year period—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No, I am sorry, but we cannot discuss the Amendment. The matter can be raised on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I want to make it clear what I was proposing to do. The reason why I am supporting the spirit of the Amendment is because of the illogicality which the Bill assumes in its present form. If application is made at the end of the five years under the Bill in its present form, the owner can give notice to acquire straight away. That seems to me to be wrong.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made:
In page 4, line 39, leave out "commencement of this Act," and insert: date appointed under Sub-section (1) of the preceding Section.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out: authority on whose application the order was made, and insert: local planning authority in whose area the land is situated. Under the Bill as drafted, an owner, if he wishes to exercise his right or requir 1032 ing that his property should be purchased at once, must give notice to the authority on whose application the order was made, that is to say, to the authority who applied for an order under Clause 1, or the authority who apply for the purchase order. Under the Bill as drafted, an application for a Clause 1 order might, in some cases, be made not by the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated, but by a joint body or by any one of a number of authorities. In those circumstances it was felt to be a little unreasonable to place upon the owner the task of finding out which authority, among all the possible ones, was the proper one to whom he should apply. Therefore, the Amendment provides that the owner should send the notice to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated, even though that is not the proper authority. Other Amendments will also deal with this matter, and the effect will be that the notice will eventually reach the proper authority.
Amendment agreed to.

§ Commander Galbraith
I beg to move, in page 5, leave out lines 9 to 23.
The lines form part of Sub-section (4), which gives the right to any owner of property which has been included under the Clause 1 procedure for Compulsory Purchase Order, where the property has not actually been acquired by the local authority, to apply that it should, after the expiration of five years, be excluded from the area; provided that when it has not sustained war damage or has sustained such damage but has been rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use, the Minister shall be able, on the application to extend the period, to tell him to come back later on with another application. I do not know why the Minister requires this power of extending the period to five years, and so sterilising the use of the land for that period, if it has not sustained war damage or has been rendered capable of beneficial use. It seems that it would have the effect that anyone with a damaged property would not make any attempt to put it into a condition in which it could be beneficially used.

§ Major Studholme (Tavistock)
I support the Amendment. I, too, am not clear on the object of the proviso. It seems that it will have just the effect which 1033 my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested and probably will discourage owners from putting their property into reasonable repair because of uncertainty as to the future. There will be a great housing shortage and it seems most important that all owners should be encouraged to put their property into order as soon as possible. The uncertainty is a very disturbing element.

§ Mr. Silkin
I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. The proviso is very necessary for local authorities. My right hon. Friend has to appreciate the conditions which may still prevail at the expiration of five years. There will still be, in the case of many authorities, an enormous amount of land in respect of which an Order has been made but which it has not yet been possible for the local authority actually to acquire. Certainly that will be the case in London. I hesitate to venture a figure of the number of acquisitions, but it will certainly run into five figures. At the end of the five years it may still be that, although an Order has been made by my right hon. Friend, and therefore he has been satisfied that an acquisition ought to take place, it has not been possible for the local authority to carry out the acquisition. In such a case the owner, under Sub-section (4), serves notice calling upon the local authority to do something. It ought to be open to the local authority to come before the Minister and say "We are very sorry; we want the land, we intend to acquire it, but for very good reasons we have not been able to do so." Then, if they make a good case, the Minister ought to be in a position to cancel the notice served by the owners. This is an essential feature, and I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
I agree with the Bill in this respect. I think that my hon. and gallant Friends opposite are unduly apprehensive. I do not see why this should prevent the owner from putting his property into good order, as it is most important he should do, in view of the lack of houses. He will get good compensation. There is no reason to think that anyone will be discouraged from putting property into order because it may be taken over by the local authority; in fact, it operates rather the other way, and people put their property into order if they think it 1034 is going to be taken over by the local authority, in order that they may get a good price for it. I think that what my hon. Friend has said, speaking from good knowledge of the subject, is quite correct.

§ The Solicitor-General
I think that when the Committee have examined once again the conditions under which this Clause operates, they will reject the Amendment. We are considering the position as it appears from the words: in which the land in question either has not sustained war damage or has sustained such damage but has been rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use. That means, when the owner is able, without injury, to continue in the use of his property for the time being, but, being able to continue in the use of his property, he still decides to call on the local planning authority to purchase the property, so that he can reinstate himself in other premises as soon as possible. That means that the authority might well be in the position of not being able to obtain a new tenant for the short term before the redevelopment takes place, and they are left with empty property on their hands if they are not to meet claims for disturbance prematurely. In these circumstances, it is obvious that in certain cases hardship is going to fall on the local authority, and all that the present wording of the Act calls for is for the Minister to have discretion in these circumstances, and in that class of case, to allow the property to remain subject to compulsory acquisition.

§ Earl Winterton
That hardship will not fall upon anybody, because in the next five years there will not be enough houses for people to live in, because of the bad housing policy of the Government.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am indebted to my right hon. Friend, but all we are concerned with here is to leave the Minister in a position to preserve justice and equity between the parties. The Minister must grant a hearing in the matter if the local planning authorities so desire, so as to allow every opportunity for each point of view to be put before him. I ask the Committee to be satisfied with that reasonable provision.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller
Why is the proviso limited so as to exclude land which has sustained war damage and to which nothing has been done?

§ The Solicitor-General
I think my hon. Friend will find that that point is dealt with when we reach Clause 27, which I hope will be in a very short time.

§ Commander Galbraith
In view of the explanation given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 5, line 27, at end, insert: () "An authority shall comply with any requirements of the Minister as to notification to other authorities concerned of the receipt by the authority of notices under Sub-section (4) of this Section or of the giving by them of directions under the last preceding Subsection."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

§ Mr. H. Strauss
I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (6).
I rise with the greater confidence seeing that I am supported by a number of my hon. Friends who have not on all occasions supported the views I was putting forward This Sub-section now becomes inappropriate, because its purpose was to relieve the Minister of an obligation to hold a local inquiry in certain circumstances, and now, under the Amendments which we will move dealing with Schedules to this Bill, the Minister will be relieved in every case of that absolute obligation. This Sub-section accordingly becomes unnecessary, and indeed, inappropriate, for it will be noticed that it deals with matters which are submitted to him in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act, and in due course we propose to abolish "the Second Schedule to this Act."

§ Mr. Silkin
My hon. Friend will always find support from his hon. Friends behind him whenever he wants to omit any part of this Bill The more he omits, the more support he will get. But I doubt whether my hon. Friend has accurately explained the purpose of this Sub-section. As I read it, it meant that, normally, the local authority, in submitting an application to the Minister, would also include land required for replacement; but there were cases where it might turn out that land which had not been included in the original application was required for replacement. It might be that, when the local authority came to examine the redevelopment of the area more closely, they 1036 found that they needed other land than that which they had originally applied for. I thought that this Sub-section gave them two years to find out whether they required such land. With this Sub-section omitted, once a local authority has made its original application, there will be no power to ask for an Order for other land which they might subsequently find that they needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will think again. I admit that this Subsection will need amendment in the light of other Amendments to be made in respect of the procedure, and that the words "the Second Schedule to this Act" will be inappropriate. But the substance of the Sub-section will still remain necessary, and, if this power is not conferred on local authorities subsequently to acquire land for replacement purposes, it will be necessary to put right that provision.

§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
I think we are entitled to have an explanation. To delete a lengthy Clause such as this without explanation does not satisfy this side of the Committee, and when we see the proposal supported by a long list of hon. Members, a number of whom are not favourable to the Bill, it rather makes us suspicious. Before the Minister gets agreement from this side, we would like a much fuller explanation as to the real cause.

§ Mr. Strauss
I am sorry if I was perfunctory, and I am still more sorry if the support of my hon. Friends should have led to any doubt as to the merit of this Amendment.

§ Mr. G. Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman was delighted with it and it made us suspicious.

§ Mr. Strauss
It is always a pleasure to find myself supported by hon. Members in various parts of the Committee with whom, on other occasions, I have found it my duty to differ. I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is in agreement that this Sub-section, as it stands, has now become entirely inappropriate, because its main object—I say its main object—is to relieve the Minister from the obligation, in certain cases, to hold local inquiries. The Minister is relieved, under other provisions which we are moving, of that obligation in all cases, and therefore this becomes inappropriate. 1037 But the hon. Member for Peckham thinks there are other matters which are affected by this Sub-section. I am advised—I hope I have understood his point correctly—that this is not so, and that there will be all the powers for which he asked under other provisions of the Bill, I will undertake that if the Sub-section does more than I have described, I will look into it and see if an addition is required in another place. It is quite certain that this Sub-section has now become inappropriate.

§ Mr. Silkin
This Sub-section does two things. I agree that it does deal with the question of a public inquiry, but it also says to the local authority: "You have asked for certain additional land for replacement in your original application. Perhaps you will find, in two years' time, that you have not asked for enough or that circumstances have changed and you want additional land." This Sub-section gives the local authority the right, within two years, to go back and ask for additional land for replacement. It is that power which my hon. Friend is deleting when he deletes the Sub-section, and that probably explains why he has had so much support from his hon. Friends behind him; but this power is of vital importance to local authorities. Otherwise, they will ask for much more land than they really need. The tendency will be to ask for far more land than they need in order to obviate the possibility of making a mistake. I hope my hon. Friend will see this point and restore the power to the local authorities.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I think the last argument from the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), for whom I have the greatest respect, takes us a great deal too far. It has been said that those of us who are particularly anxious that no private citizen shall have his legal rights interfered with without proper notice and inquiry are to be regarded with suspicion in this matter. I think that that accusation is unfair and really irrelevant, and that it might now be dropped. The hon. Gentleman opposite, however, in his last sentence went a long way to justify any section of this Committee who may be actuated by such motives, because he has told us that, if this Sub-section is dropped, local authorities will, as a matter of course—I think it is within the recollection of the Committee, but I am ready to stand by 1038 HANSARD—yield to the temptation to budget very loosely and to ask for compulsory powers for much more than they are likely to need. If that is one of the reasons which we are to get from the local authorities, then really the hon. Gentleman opposite is inviting criticism, suspicion and even obstruction.

§ Mr. Silkin
It does not rest with them.

§ Mr. Wilmot
We dealt with the principle involved in this matter on Clause 1, and the Minister agreed that it was desirable that he should have discretion in allowing the local authorities to amend the plans which, in the first place, they submitted, and which circumstances had shown to be inadequate. If the circumstances are such that it becomes necessary to amend the plan, and to acquire another strip of land, it should not be open to the landowner to stick up the scheme or that the Minister, within his discretion, should not allow it to be amended. We went over this and the Committee decided that amendment with the Minister's approval was desirable.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
I feel that hon. Members opposite are thinking that there will be a gap in the Bill if this Sub-section is omitted, but I do not believe there will. I believe my hon. Friends will find that, under the provisions of Clause 10, they will be able to deal with land which they think they would not be able to deal with if this Sub-section were omitted. Provisions dealing with local inquiries and the revision of the schedules are, as my hon. Friend knows, considered by the local authorities to be a great improvement in the Bill. I really believe that, if my hon. Friend will study the provisions fully, he will find that this Sub-section takes away no power from them at all. I shall be delighted, to consider his point, but what is quite certain is that the Subsection in its present form is quite inappropriate and I ask the Committee to agree to its deletion.

§ Mr. Silkin
Will my hon. Friend agree to look at this again, and, if he finds that this power is really necesary, will he put in another Sub-section?

§ Mr. Strauss
If it is necessary, and is not provided elsewhere in the Bill, I will certainly look into my hon. Friend's point.
Amendment agreed to. 1039 Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.