HC Deb 19 October 1954 vol 531 cc1053-68
The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert: (7) Where two or more persons are jointly entitled to a claim holding, then, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not those persons are entitled to a payment in respect of the holding by virtue of this section, any act or event by virtue of which the interest of any one or more of those persons in any of the area of the claim holding passed to any other one or more of those persons shall be deemed not to have occurred. (8) The provisions of this and the next following section shall apply in relation to any interest in land vested in the British Transport Commission by subsection (2) of section forty-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the acquisition of road haulage undertakings by the Commission), as if that vesting were a compulsory acquisition of that interest and as if the notice of acquisition served under Part III of that Act by virtue of which the interest was so vested were a notice to treat. The object of the Amendment is to add two new subsections to Clause 6. There are two distinct points involved, one in each of the two new subsections. The proposed subsection (7) has been added here in order to remedy an injustice that otherwise might have taken place. In order to make its object and effect clear, perhaps I might describe the present position and then try to describe the effect of the Amendment.

To entitle anyone to a Case B payment under the Bill at present the claimant must, at the time of the acquisition or sale of the interest in the land, be both the holder of the claim holding and also the owner of the interest in the land, and if before the land is acquired or sold compulsorily the two people—the holder of the claim and the owner of the interest in the land—should become separate, the effect would be to deprive the person entitled to the claim of the benefit of that claim. The proposed new subsection provides that any transaction in the land among joint holders of the claim holding is to be annulled. Joint holders will thus be entitled to claim as though jointly holding the land.

Subsection (8) has been added to cover the case of transfers of land and property under the Transport Act, 1947, from private hauliers to the British Transport Commission. The trouble is that under that Act transfers of land are not carried out by compulsory acquisition. The effect of this Amendment will be to treat, for the purpose of the Clause, as compulsory acquisition transfers of land under the Transport Act, 1947, and thus bring within the scope of Case B such cases if the price paid is below the existing use value plus claim.

Mr. Douglas Johnston (Paisley)

should like the learned Lord Advocate to confirm that this Clause has an extremely limited application and that such application is limited to the following circumstances: first, that on the appointed day there is a joint holding of land; second, that the claim under Part VI of the Act is established; third, that after the Part VI claim is established the joint holding in the land is split while the joint holding, in the claim remains in the original holders of the land.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it is in these circumstances alone that this deeming provision applies—that, in spite of the fact that there has been a transaction or event, that transaction or event shall be deemed not to have occurred? I think that I am right in that, but I confess that this Bill is so obscure in so many of its provisions that I am not certain of it, and accordingly I should be obliged if the Lord Advocate would confirm or contradict my belief.

In passing, too, I think that this provision for one single set of circumstances is simply an example of the errors of draftsmanship in the whole of the Bill, in that the Bill does not proceed to enunciate general principles and then go on to give exceptions to and extensions of the general principles. The Bill does nothing but provide for a succession of special cases which, I venture to say, will first of all be found not to be comprehensive, and secondly will be impossible to apply because of their complexity.

May I further ask whether this proposed subsection (8) imposes any greater obligation on the British Transport Commission than is provided for by the Transport Act, 1947?

Mr. Hector Hughes

I must confess that I find the argument presented by the learned Lord Advocate singularly unconvincing. In one thing, however, I agree with him. Each of these two proposed subsections deals with a separate and distinct point, but the matter at which this House has every right to cavil is that not only does each deal with a separate and distinct thing but with things which are quite separate and distinct from the Clause itself. They bear no relation to the Clause and, if Amendments of this character are to be inserted in the Bill, then in my submission this is not the place to do it.

The Government are making a very serious mistake in proposing this Amendment to Clause 6. The Amendment is irrelevant to Clause 6 and is outside its purpose. It was not mentioned in Committee and, until we saw it on the Order Paper for today, no notice of it was given. As I have said, the two proposed subsections deal with two things which are foreign to the Clause. They do not touch upon any words in the Clause, and if these two things are to be put in the Bill at all, they should be put in another place.

Unlike the other 68 Clauses and the 10 Schedules at the end of this Bill, this Clause was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. No point was then made on the lines of this Amendment and no undertaking or direction or declaration was either asked for or given. Clause 6, to which it is now, at this late hour, sought to add, deals with cases of: Payments where interest in land compulsorily acquired or sold of a price wholly or partly excluding development value (Case B). It is clear, therefore, that Clause 6 bears no relation to either of the matters contained in the proposed subsections.

As the Lord Advocate has very fairly said, subsection (7) deals with joint owners of a claim holding, while subsection (8) deals with land vested in the British Transport Commission by Section 45 (2) of the Transport Act, 1947. It is right that the House should be told that when Clause 6 was debated in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) proposed two Amendments. He made clear and persuasive speeches upon those Amendments both of which were discussed by a number of hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) all spoke on those Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now sitting opposite, replied for the Government.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)

I hope that the hon. and learned Member is going to relate that argument to this Amendment.

Mr. Hughes

I am pointing out—and I have already said clearly—that when this Clause was before the Scottish Grand Committee, two Amendments were proposed and discussed but no hint was then given of the subjects included in these two proposed subsections.

4.30 p.m.

Let us examine these two subsections on their merits. I regret that the Lord Advocate did not do so. The Lord Advocate contended himself with saying that they were, as a lawyer would say, dehors the subject of the Clause itself. Clause 6 which is sought to be amended—I am keeping myself strictly in order, Sir Rhys—is one of a set of Clauses, Clauses 4 to 12, all dealing with unitary owners of claims. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with Case A payments. Clauses 6 and 7 deal with Case B payments. Clause 8 deals with Case C payments, Clause 9 deals with Case D payments and Clause 10 deals with payments under Cases A, B or C to a person deriving title to a claim holding from the original claim holder.

The point that I am making is that this Amendment should not be accepted, either because it is irrelevant to the Clause or because it is sought to put it in the wrong place in the Bill. I mention that in parenthesis, Sir Rhys, because I see that you are rather restive, and I am doing my best to keep in order.

Clause 11 deals with payments in cases analogous to Case B, and Clause 12 deals with residual payments in cases analogous to Cases A and B. That set of Clauses, of which Clause 6 is one, constitute a scheme within the Bill—a comprehensive and complicated scheme, it is true—dealing with the rights and liabilities of any person who is called in the Bill "the holder of a claim holding" in any of the sets of circumstances depicted in Clauses 4 to 12.

I have mentioned the environment of these two subsections and of Clause 6 in order to show that the Government are seeking to put into the Clause something that is unnecessary, out of place and foreign to it. In fact, it would extend the scope of the Clause and the purview of the Bill. It would extend the rights of property owners within the meaning of the essential phrase, "the holder of a claim holding." What is such a holder? It is necessary to know what such a holder is, in order to decide whether these subsections are relevant or irrelevant and whether the Committee should accept them.

Such a holder is defined in Clause 3 (7) as follows: (7) In this Act the expression "the holder," in relation to a claim holding (being either the whole or part of the benefit of an established claim), means the person for the time being entitled to the holding. That is sense. It is also clear. It also makes unnecessary and undesirable the Amendment which has been moved. It is admitted on all hands, and has been admitted all through the proceedings on this Bill, that it is complicated enough. Provisions such as these would make it still more complicated.

Therefore, this Bill, which is already longer than the English Bill which had 15 sitting days in Committee while this has had only six, ought not to be made longer still and more complicated, and therefore more difficult to be administered by the unfortunate people who will have to administer it. Such complications may involve litigation and thereby pile expense upon the various people who presumably are to be benefited by the Bill. On all those grounds, I oppose this Amendment.

Mr. Hoy

I want to concentrate my remarks on subsection (8) of the Amendment. I think subsection (7) is more clearly understood. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was quite right in saying that this Amendment was not discussed during the Committee stage of this Bill, but was discussed on the English Bill. I believe it was one of my right hon. and learned Friends who, in Com- mittee on the English Bill, drew attention to an anomaly, as he thought it was, which resulted in this Amendment appearing on the Notice Paper relating to the Scottish Bill.

I think it means that under the present Measure, if there were, say, 500 acres involved which were held jointly by two persons and they then divided it, they would have no right to claim compensation to which they might have been entitled. I understand that the purpose of this Amendment is this, that although they might divide the land between them compensation can still be paid to either of them as of right. If there were a sum of £500 for compensation, it does not alter that sum. Therefore, it does not add to the charge.

This Amendment, therefore, did not require to be recommitted, so the charge must be added to because of subsection (8), and it is that about which I want to inquire. Does it mean that the land which the British Transport Commission has taken over has now to be assessed in a different manner? Does it mean that, as a result of this Amendment, the Transport Commission will be asked to pay a sum larger than it has done heretofore? It seems to me that that is the only way in which the charge is being added to. I think it is a little complicated, and I am certain that the Committee would be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate if he would either confirm or deny the point that I have made.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

The Committee is bound to consider very closely the second subsection in the Amendment. I was noting with great care the ease with which the Lord Advocate tried to put his case over. He only devoted about six words to this matter, and when a Member of the Government devotes only six words to road hauliers I become rather suspicious of what is going on.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has said, it seems that the obvious intention of this subsection is to increase the amount that the road hauliers have received in the past. I want to know whether the Lord Advocate can give the Committee any indication of the number of cases which are affected by this Amendment and the sum likely to be involved. I think we have the right to know this. We ought to know, too, who is responsible. Is it the British Transport Commission, or is it going to be the road hauliers again when they take back the road transport which the Government are busily transferring to them?

What is the position? Are the road hauliers to compensate themselves? I think there would be a certain amount of justice in that, but I think we are entitled to have rather more information about subsection (8) and its effects than the Lord Advocate has so far told us. I think that all he said about it was that if this land was acquired at below use value plus the claim—that is the unexpended portion of the relevant value—then the owners would be able to claim additional compensation in respect of that land. Are we to understand that the British Transport Commission obtained this land at a low existing use value, or is it simply that it is now to receive something that it was never intended that it should receive when this House passed the legislation nationalising transport? We should have some answers to these points.

Mr. Woodburn

Assuming that the Amendments were agreed to, the claim holding under the Bill will be entitled to an addition of one-seventh in respect of compensation for the period which has elapsed since the original claim holding was settled. Are we to understand that if the Amendment is agreed to the road hauliers will not only get the claim holding but will also become entitled to the extra one-seventh, even though they did not have to wait all this time for compensation? Are they to be entitled to the extra one-seventh, which is in respect of a lapse of time which has not affected them? It seems that this will become payable unless some provision is made to prevent it.

The Lord Advocate

I want to deal as fully as I can with the various points which have been made. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) raised a question about the scope of the proposed subsection (7) and set out a series of circumstances in respect of which he wanted to know whether the Clause would operate. He put these sets of circumstances more clearly than I could, and my answer, quite shortly, is "yes."

The hon. Member for Paisley, together with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) wanted to know whether the proposed subsection (8) imposed any additional obligation upon the Transport Commission. The answer to that question is "No." It may involve an additional burden, but that burden will fall not upon the Commission but upon the Exchequer. I shall try to illustrate the circumstances in which that might happen. The complication arises from the terms of the British Transport Act, 1947, which provided that compensation in respect of transfers of land was to be paid upon the basis of the market value of the land, and it may well have happened, especially where the transferred land was not fully developed, that its market value was depressed to a point below the existing use value plus the unexhausted balance of the claim. It is understood that there are cases where that has taken place, and it is to provide for those and to enable the system to operate with complete fairness between all these people that we have decided that in these circumstances the basis should be the existing use value plus the unexhausted balance of the claim.

I have been asked how many such cases there are in Scotland. I can only say I do not know, and I could not possibly know. We anticipate that there may be some such cases, and even if there were only one it would be right to make provision for it so as to enable the person concerned to obtain fair treatment.

The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked me about the one-seventh supplement. The answer is that road hauliers will get the benefit of that supplement. It is part of the general settlement proposed in the Bill that the supplement of one-seventh should be paid in all cases.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

It is preposterous that road hauliers are now to get another gift. This supplement will compensate them for something in respect of which they need no compensation, and the matter will get into a complete tangle. First of all, road hauliers have received their compensation. The Bill now provides that if, by any chance, they received that compensation in such a way that it deprived them of the right to a claim holding, they shall be given the extra compensation. In addition, we are to give them an extra one-seventh to compensate them for something which they have never lost. They have never suffered what the people who have not been paid their claim have suffered.

The matter does not end there, because we are now buying back these vehicles from the road hauliers, and so far as I can gather we shall not even get the value of what we have been handing back to them. We are giving them an extra one-seventh on top of the compensation, and will then buy back the vehicles, giving them another gift by not taking from them sufficient to pay for what they will get from us.

I have never heard of such a proposition. In a Bill which provides that nationalised industry is to be sold out, the people to whom it is being sold out, not only having received payment when it was sold out, are also to receive an additional sum of one-seventh. I do not understand the influence which road hauliers have with the Government. One would have thought that it was a Government of road hauliers; it has certainly been hauled all over the place. Money is being squandered in every direction for the sake of road hauliers. It is the biggest scandal in politics that I have heard of.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

I am wondering whether this Amendment is not a violation of Part I. Clause 1 says: The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for requiring payments to be made by the Central Land Board, by reference to claims established under Part V of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 We have just been told that the sales or purchases of land by and to the Transport Commission were carried out under quite different conditions, and not under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, for which, I understand, Part I of the Bill is an attempt to make what some people might call redress. Those purchases or sales were carried under a quite different set of regulations. We have been told that the law stated in those regulations was that the land should be acquired at market value. That is quite different from what is described in Part I, and I should like to know whether or not the Amendment is really in accordance with Part I, or whether it is out of order.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

I was rather surprised to hear that the Amendment cannot be dealt with on the Report stage. The fact that it has been recommitted shows that some extra charge is being thrown upon the Treasury. I was astonished to hear that the road hauliers are to receive something not from the Transport Commission but from the Treasury, but I suppose that is why the Bill has to be recommitted. I have been in the House for only three years, but it seems to me that this is one of the rare occasions where we have a Bill before us on the Committee stage and no one seems to know how much a certain provision will cost the Treasury.

When we make any proposal the Treasury wants to know how much it will cost, unless, perhaps, it is a matter relating to the Army, the Navy or the Air Force; but the Treasury always wants to know how much any proposal on a social matter is to cost. Surely, before this Amendment is passed, we ought to know how much it is to cost the Treasury. How much is this one-seventh that is to be paid out to road haulage undertakings to cost the taxpayers altogether? Those undertakings are being transferred to private enterprise from the British Transport Commission. Many have already been transferred. Surely, it is an easy thing for the Government to give the Committee some idea of how much more the taxpayers have to pay to the hauliers.

If we cannot have the answer today, cannot the Committee adjourn until the Secretary of State can find out just how much his proposals will cost? Then we can meet again. We could take the matter to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Hector Hughes

There is no one here from the Treasury to tell us.

Mr. Bence

My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Our national economy has reached the stage now at which we cannot let things be passed without knowing what they are to cost the taxpayers. They are being committed to hundreds of millions of pounds expenditure by all sorts of agreements in London and elsewhere—hundreds of millions per annum. By this Amendment they are being committed again. The taxpayers of Scotland are fed up with it. Surely we are entitled to have some idea of the cost. We do not ask to know the cost precisely to the last shilling or even to the nearest pound, but we do want to know how many thousands or millions of pounds this proposal will cost the Treasury.

Mr. D. Johnston

Am I right in thinking that the Lord Advocate informed the Committee that in the event of a road haulier's land having been acquired by the British Transport Commission, the land having been bought at what was then thought to be the market value of the land, the road haulier can now make another claim, saying, "The value that I got for the land that was taken from me was a low value because of the existence of the Town and Country Planning Act of that time"? Can he say, "I am entitled to a larger price, and I am also entitled to one-seventh of the total sum which I have received and will receive in the future"?

Let me give an example. If a road haulier's land was acquired for £100,000 under the Transport Act, 1947, and he now comes forward and says it should have been £110,000, is he now entitled to say, "I am entitled to one-seventh of £100,000 plus one-seventh of £10,000"? Is that the case? I can hardly believe it is so, because the one-seventh proposed to be given under the Bill was proposed to be given because of the delay in paying out under the compensation provisions of the original Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. That is the first question.

The second question is why, if road hauliers are to be given this, is it not right that it should be given to those persons whose land has been compulsorily acquired under various other Acts, for example, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act? Would the Lord Advocate inform the Committee of the answers to these two questions?

The Lord Advocate

I think the Committee is making a mountain out of a relatively small molehill. This is not a vast increase in financial obligations. The whole purpose of subsection (8) is to put the people whose property was taken over by the British Transport Commission under the 1947 Act in the same position as—not to give them any further benefit than—other people whose land under various Acts has been acquired compulsorily. The road haulier will not get a payment under this Clause just because he is a road haulier. He will only get a payment under case B if he has put in a claim under the 1947 Act, and all he will get under that will be to put him into the same position as that of any other person whose land has been compulsorily acquired under all the various Acts under which compulsory acquisition takes place.

He will get only the difference between the compensation for compulsory acquisition proposed by this Bill, and what he actually received. If what he actually received was just as much as he would have got if the land had been compulsorily acquired under some other Act, he will not get a penny piece; but if he got something less, we think it right, and I am sure the Committee will agree that it is right, that he should be put into precisely the same financial position as that of other people whose ground is compulsorily acquired.

Mr. Lawson

My question has not been answered. I am asking whether or not these are claims that have been established. Are they already established claims? If they are established why bring them forward? Are they going to the Central Land Board now?

The Lord Advocate

That is so. These claims were put in and are with the Central Land Board now.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

The Lord Advocate has told us that the purpose of the Amendment is to treat the road hauliers in the same manner as other claimholders whose land has been compulsorily acquired. He has just said, without adducing any evidence that it is so, and I must tell him that some of us doubt it very much indeed. It is conceivable, is it not, that land was acquired compulsorily by the British Electricity Authority at a market value which may be less than the existing use value? Under what Act are those people given this comfort which is now being offered to the road hauliers?

In any case, am I not right in saying that much of this land that was transferred from the road hauliers to the British Transport Commission was not compulsorily acquired at all? The Amendment says that the land should be treated as if it had been compulsorily acquired, but there are many cases in which road hauliers' land and business were transferred to the ownership of the Commission at an agreed price. I feel sure that the Commission thought at the time that it was paying an unduly high amount for the other assets being taken over, and, perhaps, not so high an amount for the land.

We cannot be easy in our minds about this proposal because we know from our daily experience that the road hauliers must have been much too generously treated in the first place, because much-improved assets are being retransferred to private enterprise at a much lower price than was paid for them in the first place; and now here we are being asked to ensure that these road hauliers shall be picked out by this Bill and given further compensation in respect of land which was theirs but which they freely sold to the Commission; land which was not compulsorily acquired, but land which is to be treated as if it had been compulsorily acquired. In many cases that land has been, or is in the process of being, re-transferred from public ownership to private ownership.

How can the Lord Advocate expect the Committee to accept this Amendment with the explanation he has given to us? I beg him to give us some real justification for this Amendment. If he does not endeavour to offer further justification then we must assume that there is none whatsoever for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hoy

Perhaps this would give the Lord Advocate the opportunity to deal more fully with the point we have been discussing. I am not quite certain but I think that some further information was passed to him within the last few seconds, and it may be he would like to clear up what appears to be a dreadful anomaly.

The Lord Advocate

The reason this particular provision in the Transport Act does not apply in the case of other compulsorily acquired land is the wording in the Transport Act, and it is necessary to make this provision apply to Transport Act acquisitions to put them in precisely the same position as other compulsorily acquired land.

Mr. Ross

But it will be remembered that under the Transport Act it was open to an owner of a transport business to compel the British Transport Commission to take over his business. Does this compensation relating to this land apply to such cases as that?

The Lord Advocate

It would not apply at all to this if the price at which it was taken over was on the basis under which compulsorily compensation is paid for acquired land. In other words, if the price were worked out at existing use value plus the unexhausted balance and if it did not exceed that sum, then that would be the measure of the matter and this particular subsection would not come into operation. It is only where something less than that is agreed that this subsection will come into effect so as to bring the figure paid up to what would have been paid under any other Act allowing for compulsory acquisition. That is all that the recently approved Amendment does.

Mr. Woodburn

I do not know whether I should refer to a recent very tragic case of suicide because, as the Committee knows, the road hauliers are not committing suicide. They are too prosperous. But there was the case of a person whose land was acquired compulsorily and the price paid for it was fixed much below that at which he purchased it. If that is the position with the road hauliers, then they might try and put in their claims in some roundabout way and the Commission would buy at above the value that the haulier had paid for it originally. Is there any possibility of that happening and the community being fleeced for such a purpose?

The Lord Advocate

Frankly, I do not think that that could happen.

Mr. T. Fraser

Could the Lord Advocate reply at least to one of the questions I put to him when we were discussing the Amendment? What is the position in regard to a piece of land which was transferred to the British Transport Commission at the market value and that was less than the existing use value? Does that become covered by the new subsections in Clause 6 and what is the position if it is now retransferred to private enterprise?

It may be that some road haulier will get it back and it may very well be will pay very much less for the land than when the Transport Commission took it over. Can the learned Lord Advocate explain to us what is the position of that land now? He must not pretend that we are not now denationalising the road transport industry. That process is going on. He has been discussing this provision as though the Government are not denationalising road transport, but I could give him examples now of units that are being retransferred to private enterprise at give-away prices. Let him ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport what is happening to the Dumfries and Ayrshire depots?

If, under subsection (8) of this Clause, the land is transferred to the British Transport Commission at less than the existing use value, is any account to be taken in assessing payment of the price which private enterprise is now paying on regaining possession of the land? I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us something about that.

Mr. Hector Hughes

May I put this simple question to the Lord Advocate? Is not the effect of the amended Clause that it gives the owner of land which was acquired under the Transport Act, 1947, the opportunity of selecting the price which he will be paid? If the land were acquired by agreement one sum would be agreed, but if, on the other hand, the land is acquired compulsory, another sum will be assessed. Is the owner of that land to be entitled to hold up the community to ransom and say, "I will take whichever is the higher sum"? If that is so, is that not putting the owner of such land into a specially favoured class as against the rest of the community, and is it not gambling with public money?

The Lord Advocate

I do not want to delay the Committee unnecessarily, because I have spoken a great deal on this Clause. If I may, I will answer the point put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). He wanted to know what was to happen in the case of a haulier who handed over his property to the Transport Commission at a market value which was less than he would have got for it if it had been acquired compulsorily under some other Act.

In the first place, if he had not put in a claim he would not get anything. This subsection applies only to the case of people who have put in claims. If he had put in a claim, however, under the Amendment which we have just approved he would get the money that he had received for his property made up precisely to the same amount as if that ground had been acquired under some other Act enabling compulsory acquisition to take place. We are here equating all the other people who had their land compulsorily acquired. The man in question is not better or worse than these others.

The re-transfer of land under subsequent Acts has, of course, nothing to do with this Bill. The Bill deals with claims on the £300 million fund, and it is endeavouring to try to equate those claims as fairly as possible between the various parties. The new subsections to Clause 6 are an endeavour to deal equitably with the haulier but only if he had an unfair deal in comparison with other people whose ground has been compulsorily acquired. That is the beginning and the end of what it achieves, and I trust that the Committee will now give the amended Clause their approval.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.