I beg to move,

"That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 32 and Clause 59, page 42, line 44, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer."

May I say that the Government have no objection to accepting the Amendment to this Motion, which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whit by (Mr. Spearman)?

I beg to move, in line 5, at end, add:

"and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 45, page 34, line 31, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Spearman."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to add:

(b) for the purposes of Sub-section (5) of that Section, the Minister making the proposals with respect to which the inquiry is being held shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry and costs may be ordered to be paid to or by him accordingly."

This Amendment, fulfils an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage, when the question was raised of the payment of costs before the Commission. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) doubted whether the Section of the Local Government Act which we are importing into Clause 2 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill would fulfil the purposes which we have in mind, and this new paragraph is moved to make it clear that the Commission will be able to award costs against the Minister who brings forward a proposal for acquisition where the Commission think that the costs should be paid by the Crown.

I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for going half way on this point. The Committee may remember that we made two points during the Committee stage one that a Minister should be able to pay the costs, and, secondly, that the expenses of the Commission would not be charged against the litigant. I hope the other point will be dealt with on the Report stage.

I beg to move, in page 34, line 31, leave out "appointed day," and insert "eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five."

I support the Amendment which, of course, covers all forms of requisitioned property and is not limited to hotels. I would only make the point that I think it is rather invidious that the improved compensation should commence to run only from the appointed day, because by Sub-section (2) the appointed day means such day as the Treasury may appoint, and they ought not to be tempted to postpone that date. After all, in this matter the Treasury is judge in its own cause, and I think it would be very much fairer from every point of view that the improved compensation should begin to run from a fixed date, and the proper date, in my submission, is that which is named in the Amendment, the 8th May. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Very briefly I wish to support the Amendment, because I want to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not true to say that a very large number of properties involved have been protected from the economic blitz which has fallen upon certain parts of England. In my own constituency, had it not been for requisitioning, all the accommodation would have been taken up at the full economic rate. I hope the Chancellor will give the most sympathetic consideration to my hon. Friend's Amendment.

I should not like any of my hon. Friends to think that if I find it necessary to oppose this Amend- ment my general attitude at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill is in any way unsympathetic. The position as I see it is this: In Committee the provisions of Clause 45 were inserted in the Bill as a concession to meet admitted hardships. Now my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) proposes that the benefits of the concession, instead of running from the appointed day, should run from the date at which hostilities in Europe came to an end. The objection to that is a purely practical one. It would in my judgment defeat the object of the concession which we have already provided in the Bill designed to meet the hardship of prolonged requisition—after the period of the emergency has, in respect of the majority of properties, come to an end—of a number of perhaps more or less arbitrarily selected properties at rents fixed in the emergency perhaps on a basis that reflected exceptional conditions which have come to an end with the emergency. If this concession is to be practical it must apply to a limited number of cases and avoid the large number of revisions of rent that would be involved if the concession were made applicable before the process of de-requisitioning, which I hope will now go on very rapidly, has covered large numbers of properties of all kinds. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) is quite right in saying that the provisions we are dealing with here are general provisions and not designed specially to meet the case of hotels. There is a vast number of small properties that have been requisitioned, running into tens if not hundreds of thousands, which we want to dispose of, and when that has been done we will fix the appointed day, and then those properties which continue to be under requisition in the post-war period will have the benefit of the provisions of Clause 4.

I realise my right hon. Friend's point, that it would make administrative difficulties, and that is why I only ask that it should apply to those hotels which are still requisitioned on the appointed day, so that those still requisitioned then should receive the increased rent retrospectively.

But my hon. Friend persists in treating this as if it were a special provision for hotels. Would he look at the case of the ordinary little house? A vast number of houses occupied by troops are to be de-requisitioned. What he proposes is that where a property has been de-requisitioned before the appointed day. there should be no question of giving it the benefit of this concession, but if it is occupied one day after the appointed day it is to get the benefit of this concession and not only from the appointed day but retrospectively. Look at the inequalities which would result. Look at the temptation there would be for the Treasury—if such a Department as the Treasury were open to temptation at all—to defer the appointed day so that there should be no possible charge of inequality in the treatment of similar properties. I assure my hon. Friend that the Treasury will not be influenced at all—so far as I can speak for the Treasury during the next few months—in fixing the appointed day by any consideration of a saving by postponing the appointed day. We will fix the appointed day as soon as we feel that we can handle the problem. I hope that after that assurance my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance that the Treasury will go out of their way to fix the appointed day as early as possible I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 42, line 44, at end, insert:

"(4) Where a Minister has acquired or has power to acquire any land under the Defence Acts or would have power so to acquire any land if he did not already own it, and that land contains part of a continuous main or pipe or the whole or part of works used in connection therewith, any rights necessary for or incidental to the maintenance or use of any part of the main or pipe which is in, over or under land not owned or acquired by the Minister may, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the acquisition of easements, be acquired by him as, and, if so acquired by him, shall be deemed for all purposes to be, easements for the benefit of such of the first mentioned land as he owns or acquires:

Provided that in relation to the acquisition of any such rights, the reference in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of this Act to easements which are in the opinion of the Minister essential to the full enjoyment of the land therein mentioned shall be construed as a reference to easements which in the opinion of the Minister are essential to the full enjoyment of the main or pipe."

This Amendment deals with the position which arises in connection with the trunk oil pipelines which have been laid down by the Government. There may be a case for acquisition, under Clause 5, of the land for the pipes or the boosting stations which are attached to them, and also for acquisition of portions of the underground strata, but in some places the pipes are over ground and cross rivers and canals, in which case Clause 5 would be inappropriate. In that case we desire to acquire easements which will secure that these sections of the pipe can be used or maintained. There is a legal difficulty in the acquisition of easements and treating these as easements, because in the case of easements you have to have a dominant tenant, but in this case we are treating the pipe as the dominant tenant and taking power to acquire the easements for the carriage of the pipe on that basis. It is a simple if somewhat special point, and I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

I would like some further explanation on this point. Apparently this Amendment would give power to the Government to acquire certain easements, but it is an Amendment to Clause 59, which is purely an interpretation Clause. Can the learned Attorney-General, whom I congratulate on his new office, give any example of any other Act of Parliament where an interpretation Clause, which merely says what certain words mean in the Act, gives a Government Department power to acquire a fresh right? I suggest that either at a later stage or in another place this new Subsection, if we now agree to it, should be taken out of Clause 59 and inserted either as a new Clause or, if that is preferred, inserted in Clause 25 where we are dealing with deep lines. I feel that it is more germane to Clause 25 than to Clause 59, and I cannot see how any Minister can defend the insertion in an interpretation Clause of a new right to acquire land.

I had the other day an example on this very point of easement. In that case the definition of easement was extended in the definition of a Section of a Finance Act which was dealing with certain special provisions. It is not unheard of to deal with the matter in this way and in this Bill I think the course we have taken is the most convenient one, because this new Sub-section will relate both to Part II and Part VI of the Bill. Therefore it seemed to me that the definition Clause was not an out of the way place in which to insert it. Of course if any hon. Member can suggest an improvement in drafting we will try to carry it out—I have so assured my hon. Friend on other occasions,, because I am always ready to consider what he says—but it did not seem to me that we were outraging precedent as severely as he suggested. I hope he will not press his opposition at this stage.

:I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at end, insert "by Order in Council."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion very carefully, but I do not think, on consideration, that it will really help his purpose. He suggests the addition of the words "by Order in Council." The Bill says "by His Majesty," without specifying the formalities. This means by His Majesty, on submission by the Prime Minister, and, in my view, it is unnecessary to add the formality which my hon. Friend suggests. The real purpose which my hon. Friend had in mind, as I understood his speech, was that if you add the words "Order in Council" you ensure that the recommendation is that of the Prime Minister and not of any other Minister. I think that my hon. Friend, or any hon. Members who have had to deal with these matters, will agree with me that Orders in Council deal, and must deal, with a great variety of matters on the structure of past Acts and on any organisation of the governmental machine which cannot come near the Prime Minister. The suggestion of my hon. Friend will not achieve, or go any way to achieving, his own purpose, and for that reason I would ask him not to press it and the House not to accept it.

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a good debating point by his reference to the provision as to a dissolution, but there is, in my view, a clear difference between the ending of the operations of the Commission altogether and the appointment of individual Members. The dissolution of the Commission brings to an end the working of the procedure which this House has erected in the Bill, and that is probably a matter which may be dealt with by the procedure of an Order in Council. It is really irrespective of my hon. Friend's main point as to who should recommend the appointment. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the assurance that there is ho intention on the part of the Government of depreciating in any way the importance of these appointments or the procedure of appointment by the Prime Minister and on that assurance will not press his Amendment.

In view of the assurance which has been given, in which, I understand, the Prime Minister will in effect make the appointment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out "any of."

I beg to second the Amendment.

As my hon. Friend has said, this is very little more than a drafting Amendment, and we are pleased to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, leave out from "or," to "or," in line 16, and insert:

"the said other person, his legal personal representatives or his successor in the carrying on of a trade or business in connection with the carrying on of which he incurred the expense in question."

Some of my hon. Friends were a little anxious on the Committee Stage with regard to the words in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause:

"or for some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land."

These same words appear in the governing words of the first Sub-section and it is in order to tie up the person referred to in paragraph (a), with the person referred to in the governing words of the Subsection that these words are included. My hon. Friends were afraid that a case might be made before the Commission for the acquisition of property constructed at the expense of one aircraft manufacturer being preserved for the benefit of one of his competitors or something of that kind. At any rate, the introduction of these words does tie together the person referred to in paragraph (a) of the Sub-section with the governing words of the Clause.

This entirely meets our case and we are grateful to the Government for having given way on this important point.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out from the first "the," to end of line 26, and insert:

"works should be available as war potential."

Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause has given rise to a great deal of concern in the country. At the present time the Sub-section reads:

"Where there are Government war works on the land, the power of acquisition shall be exercisable if…in the opinion of the Minister, the right to determine the use to which the works are put…ought…to be secured for the Crown."

The country generally feels that this will give the Government Department concerned far too wide a power to determine the use to which buildings will be put in the country as a whole. The Government, however, in the Committee stage, made it clear that these words were wider than was their intention. The Financial Secretary on 12th April said:

"The value of the works may be comparatively small—and the object of (c) is really connected with our war potential."—[Official Report, 12th April, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 2092.]

These are the very words that we have to put into this Amendment. Nobody will deny the Government the right to secure that works which are quasi defence works, which are not under the Defence Acts but might well be of use to our defence in any inter-war period or in any other war which we hope we shall never have after this one. No one would deny the right of the Government to take these but it would be very wrong if a Government Department could dictate to an industry what use they should make of their works, especially as war works have been erected very largely at the expense of the private firms concerned. I ask the Government, therefore, to accept these words, which were their own words on the Committee stage, and I hope that with that explanation the Amendment will be accepted.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this matter on the Report stage, because on looking at my remarks during the Committee stage I think that perhaps they were unduly brief and perhaps a little too limited in their application. It is true that one of the purposes of the inclusion of paragraph (c) is to meet cases which are truly cases of war potential. Paragraph (e), of course, gives the Government the right of acquisition where:

"the right to determine the use to which the works are put…ought,…to be secured for the Crown."

It goes on to say:

"and the case is not one where the land can be acquired under the Defence Acts…"