§ Mr. BrookeI beg to move, in page 13, line 10, to leave out from "to" to the end of line 14 and to insert:
the fact that (whether by way of designation, allocation or other particulars contained in the current development plan, or by any other means) an indication has been given that the relevant land is, or is likely, to he acquired by an authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies".1222 The Amendment is designed to meet an interesting point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the Committee. He drew attention to the fact that the reference to "proposals" in subsection (6) of what it now Clause 8 might give rise to confusion with subsection (2)—at least I took it that that was in his mind. He said, if I remember rightly, that there was a puzzling relationship between the table in subsection (2) and the words to which I have referred in what is now subsection (6).The object of subsection (6) is quite distinct from the object of subsection (2). It is to remove the depreciation that is caused, not by the actual proposals for development but by the threat hanging over of future acquisitions by a public authority. The words in the Amendment get rid of that word "proposals" which might have been ambiguous, thereby removing the trouble to which the hon. and learned Gentleman called the Committee's attention. I trust that if he has been able to study these alternative words he will be satisfied that the Government have paid attention to the valid point he raised and have made the distinction clear.
§ Mr. MitchisonThis Amendment meets the point I raised.
§ Amendment agreed to.