I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with the case of land which is to be publicly acquired, either by compulsion or agreement, which has suffered war damage, and which has attracted the converted value payment. In that case, the acquisition will be made on the assumption that the land was in the state in which it was immediately before the damage, compensation being paid on the same basis as that on which it is paid in respect of other property, namely at market value which is subject to the notional lease. The amount of the converted value payment which would have been payable to the owner will be paid to the acquiring authority, so that the owner will not get both compensation and value payment. The acquiring authority will also be entitled to the interest on the purchase price. This new Clause will put an end to the considerable feeling which has been aroused in all the blitzed areas about what is commonly known as the portable cost of works payment. The Committee will remember that there was a strong feeling that owners of war-damaged property would have been entitled to cost of works payment, but on account of necessary re-development in the blitzed areas they had their cost of works payment converted to a value payment and in such cases were suffering an injustice which was felt acutely by the local authorities themselves. Under this Clause, such persons will become entitled to compensation on the same basis as if that property had been in the condition in which it was before the damage.

; I intend to support the right hon. Gentleman in this new Clause, particularly in regard to the beneficial effect mentioned in the last part of his speech. It was very evident to me when I was in his place, that the provisions of the War Damage Act had a very prejudicial effect on proper planning, in that property which had suffered damage would have attracted cost of works payment, which was necessary for acquirement, but the mere act of acquisition excluded the owners from receiving this measure of compensation and that caused a reluctance on the part of the owner, and even a reluctance on the part of the local authority to enforce the full rigour of the law, which they felt to be unfair. I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this formidable obstacle to the planning of our bombed cities has been overcome.

I welcome this new Clause. As I indicated in a Question to the Minister yesterday, I wish that the 1939 standard could also be replaced for the people who are to get the original value payments, as well as those who will get the converted value payments. I agree with the Minister that this new Clause will end the dispute which has been raging ever since it was announced that the cost of works payments in reconstruction areas would be converted to value payments, and that it will end a great sense of injustice in all cur bombed cities. I wish to ask how long the people who will get the converted value payment will have to wait for pay- ment of their claims. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the converted payment will be met in toto to the local Authorities, and that the local authority will be responsible for compensating the people whose properties they are acquiring. But in badly 'blitzed cities such as Plymouth, Hull and Bristol, the acquisition will be spread over a consider-able period. In some cases it would create great hardship if people had to wait perhaps for a period of years, before they could get the compensation due to them on account of properties which had been destroyed. I am sure that if the Minister can reassure us on that point—that where money is needed by the people who will be the recipients of these payments, the money will be available—everyone will welcome the fact that the new Clause is being introduced.

I should like to join the hon. Lady the Member for Sutton (Mrs. Middleton) in pressing on the Minister the necessity for not delaying the payment of these people. They have experienced considerable delay and they are people who have already undergone considerable suffering. The new Clause goes a long way to meet a plea which has been put mainly from this side of the Committee, and I am sure the Minister must realise that a strong case can be made on behalf of these people.

I have no responsibility for payments under the War Damage Act. The Chancellor has stated that these value payments will be made, I believe, this year. It is only in cases where the local authorities desire to acquire the property that this adjustment will be made, and payment made to the local authority instead of the owner. This provision is not intended in any way to delay payments to the owner, of the value payments to which he is entitled. He will either get that, or the amount to which he is entitled in respect of acquisition.

If I may press the point further, I think I am right in saying that converted payments are only made within reconstruction areas. There are no converted value payments outside those areas, and therefore all the properties which attract the converted value payments will be those acquired by local authorities.

Yes, but that is not exactly the point. People who become entitled to value payments will get them, unless their property is acquired at the time when the payments are being made.

But there is some element of doubt in this matter. I am not arguing the technical details but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should look into this matter again. If there is any difficulty or doubt, will he get it put right in another place? If he will give that assurance, I shall be happy.

There is no doubt about it.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with the compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land, and broadly speaking, its effect is that the price payable is the current restricted value of the land, excluding, on the one hand, any enhancement due to buildings erected during the requisitioning, unless the owner has himself paid for those buildings, and, on the other hand, any diminution of value due to the requisitioning, so that in assessing the compensation to be paid the requisitioning will be ignored, except in the case where buildings have been put up, otherwise than at the expense of the owner

This Clause raises a question of considerable difficulty and intricacy We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a fuller explanation of what it does. He said that, broadly speaking, those affected would get the current restricted values. What exactly does he mean by that? Does he mean that where there is a compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land, no matter when that acquisition takes place, the development values attached to that land, assuming that it was derequisitioned, will be ignored when payment is made? I am not clear, from his explanation, what interpretation he seeks to put on the phrase "current restricted values." I have endeavoured to work out this Clause, and particularly Subsection (2) with the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, Part VIII, which, according to my recollection of that Measure when it was under discussion in the House, endeavoured to provide a code for compensation on the acquisition of requisitioned land. I am not clear to what extent this Clause varies that part of that Act, particularly when one finds that Subsection (1) is subject to the provisions of Part VIII of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. Bearing in mind that so much property is still held under requisition in 1947—houses, aerodromes, and a wide variety of properties—we are titled to ask the Minister to tell us a little more in detail, precisely what is the object of this extremely complicated Clause. I daresay it is all right, but his explanation has not resolved the difficulties which I found when I read this Clause with the Act of 1945.

I have not altogether appreciated the hon. and learned Member's difficulties. The current restricted value of the land is the value of the land in the ordinary market without the development value in respect of which compensation will be paid out of the £300 million, and on the assumption that there was a notional lease in existence which expires in 1954, at the current rent. That is the meaning of "current restricted value" of the land. Then I dealt with the position of buildings on the land. They are governed by the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. Again, very broadly, if the buildings were put up at the expense of the owner, then the value of those buildings will be taken into account in valuing the land; if they were not it will not. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it is sometimes necessary to have simple things explained in very complicated language.

There is one question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as we have no Law Officer on the Government Front Bench to help us. On Subsection (3) in regard to the compensation for buildings, I am anxious to know what the position is if building goes on after the acquisition. As I understand it, there is then precisely the same form of compensation as there would be if the building had taken place before the acquisition. Everyone will admit the need for carrying on the building, and I want to be sure that nothing is done due to the taking over of the land which might hold up building. That would be a rather serious matter. Will the Minister assure me that he will try to exercise his authority over Departments, so that they do not either delay or hold up building by means of this new Clause on compensation, which is difficult to understand?

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. There is one point on which I should like further information. The Minister has dealt with the meaning of current restricted values. In regard to the compulsory purchase of requisitioned land, do I understand that we are not to have the three different scales of assessment of the value dependent on the date of service of notice to treat? That is to say, if the notice to treat is given before the Bill, becomes an Act, the basis is the 1939 values; if it is between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, it is 1947 values; and, if after 1947, it is current values. Are those distinctions eliminated in the case of compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land? If they are not eliminated, where are the words which make the Clause subject to the earlier Clauses in that regard?

They are:

"the value of any interest in requisitioned land shall be assessed in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act as if the land were not requisitioned land

May I have an answer to my question?

I can give the hon. Member a complete assurance on that point. This has nothing to do with the case of building actually in progress on the land. Certainly, if what he suggested were conceivable, I give him the assurance that everything would be done to prevent any delay.

If it does not affect building, what does the Subsection mean?

It does not affect building or development which is continuing.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with the case in which land is acquired after the passing of the Act, and before the appointed day, and is in the second category to which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) referred, namely, that in respect of which compensation will be based upon prices current on 7th January, 1947. In the earlier general discussion yesterday I said that I had been somewhat impressed by the arguments that the Bill might be simplified if one could eliminate this category, and pay compensation on the basis of the date of the notice to treat in the same way as in the third category. I promised to examine that matter. I have not been able to do so since midnight last night, but I will do so before the next stage, and if there are no technical or other objections, I will see that the three stages are reduced to two.

I am sure the Committee will be pleased to have the assurance it has just received from the Minister So far, the Minister has carried the Committee, broadly speaking, with him on the proposals that these new Clauses should be added to the Bill. But this Clause, I feel—and I think most of my hon. and right hon. Friends feel the same about it—is one without which the Bill would be much better. It deals only with a comparatively limited class of cases in a very limited space of time. I was very glad to hear the Minister's assurance yesterday that there has been no change of mind about the appointed day. I mentioned yesterday that I had the pleasure of hearing the Minister at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors say he hoped that the appointed day would be very soon after the Royal Assent. After I spoke yesterday, he said very much the same thing. He said he hoped it would be early in 1948. That being the case, it seems we are making provision here for a period, at the utmost, of nine months; because, after all, the Royal Assent will probably be about July, and if the appointed day is to be early in 1948, nine months seems to be the outside limit. Really, is it worth while to have this very complicated Clause, adding further complications to an already complex situation, for the sake of that nine months or so?

In speaking on these Clauses yesterday, I made some attempt to give examples of the different values which would arise under these different Clauses in comparison with a prewar example, of a three-bedroom house that would have sold for £750 and would sell now for £2,000. A house of that type which, under the existing law, would fetch about £1,200 if compulsorily acquired would, under the Clause that we passed recently, under the terms of notional lease and subject to vacant possession, attract compensation of about 1,500 in round figures. The same house, under the terms of this Clause, would attract compensation at rather less than £850. Of course, to that figure there will fall to be added any small share that there may be of the sum which is to be distributed under Part V of the Bill, but one cannot anticipate that it will be a very large amount. It is certainly very doubtful whether it will bring this sum of £850 up to anything like the valuation of a house under a notional lease which could be offered now with vacant possession. I repeat, that this Clause adds to the complications of an already complex situation without adding to the value of the Bill as a whole. What I should like to see is that in the straightforward case, where a notice to treat is served before the date of the giving of the Royal Assent to this Bill, we should have compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition as at present; where the notice to treat is served after the date of the Royal Assent, we should get right on to the new basis of the market value. I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel inclined to vote against this new Clause, I feel so strongly that this Clause is unnecessary that I should be prepared to go to that length.

I am impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has said. I always experienced, when I scanned these Clauses for the first time, a feeling of gratitude that the 1939 prices had been abandoned; but that feeling is modified by the complication of the system of compensation which it is proposed to put into the Bill. The particular case we are considering now, namely, that in which notice to treat is served between the passing of the Act and the appointed day, refers us back to current prices before 7th January of this year. There was this to be said for the 1939 prices, that, although they had their defects, which I have pointed out on several occasions, and which the right hon. Gentleman now handsomely admits, there has grown up a sort of body of law as to what were prices current in March, 1939. But is it really necessary to hark back to January of this year? Does it make all that difference? I wonder. I feel much sympathy with the criticism, which, I feel, is entirely valid, made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, and I should follow his suggestion to divide against this Clause but for the assurance the Minister has given us that he will look into it again, and that, if he can eliminate this complication, he will do so. But I should feel happier in my own mind in not dividing against it, if I could have some description from him of what the difficulties are. We may be able to solve them.

Perhaps it would help the Committee if I stated the reasons which prompted us to fix the values prevailing immediately before 7th January, 1947. They were these. One must recognise that, whether this Bill is a good Bill or a bad Bill—I think it is a good one—it must have created a certain amount of uncertainty in the property world. There were a good many misconceptions about it, and values have changed—and, I suppose, will continue to change—somewhat arbitrarily. It was felt that that would continue, possibly, until the appointed day. Therefore, we thought—and I thought there was some substance in this, and certainly agree with it—that we should take the date when the values were relatively firm, without a shadow that this Bill may have cast on values: the values immediately before 7th January, 1947. It was not arbitrary, and I think there was good sense in it. It may be that, to avoid complications, we should pay for simplicity a price which would be unfair and unreasonable.

I do not know how this is going to work. If I were thinking only of how to get property cheaply I should say straight away, "I accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion: I withdraw this Clause." But undoubtedly, the probable effect of this Bill was to depreciate values for the time being and this depreciation may continue for a period of uncertainty until the market begins to understand how it is going to work. From that point of view I should have no objection to saying straight away we accepted the suggestion; and we should get property, probably, cheaply. But I want to give it more consideration than has been possible hitherto. However, if hon. Members want to divide on it, one Division more or less does not matter.

I think it might be convenient if I were to address the Committee now on one of the Amendments which we have put down to this new Clause.

It will not be in Order to move or speak on the Amendment now.

I appreciate that I cannot move the Amendment now. What I should like to do, with your permission, Mr. Beaumont, is to raise the point which the Amendment itself raises.

The Clause must be read a Second time, before any Amendments can be moved.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 20, to leave out from "aforesaid," to the end of the Subsection.

The words proposed to be left out provide that land compulsorily acquired between the passing of the Act and the appointed day shall be valued as if all development, except the minor developments included in the Third Schedule, were prohibited. Presumably, the intention of including these words is that the owner of the land which is being compulsorily acquired will get the development value of his land by way of compensation, instead of by way of an enhanced price paid by the purchasing authority. When I look at Clause 57 (1), 1 find that, in the case of an ordinary sale —a sale otherwise than by compulsory acquisition—payment for compensation in respect of land sold between the date of the passing of the Act and the appointed day is made to the owner of the land on the appointed day. In other words, in the case of an ordinary sale, the purchaser pays the vendor the full price of the land, including any development value, and he himself is then entitled to receive the compensation for the loss of the development value, brought about by the passing of this Act, by way of compensation out of the sum of 300 million. There is therefore, a completely different method of treatment as between a sale of land by compulsory acquisition and any other sale of land which may take place throughout this relatively short period. I do not see any reason for treating these two types of sale differently. It may be that there is some special reason, and, if the Government can tell us why they should do this, it may not he necessary to press this Amendment. At the same time, it seems to me that an unnecessary distinction is drawn, and that this is an example of the sort of complication which this Clause involves, and is one of the reasons why we hope that it may be possible to take it completely out of the Bill at a later stage.

I want to add a word on the very important point raised by my -hon. Friend. This point would appear to apply equally to the Clause which has just been under discussion, under which we have compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land by notice to treat being served when this Clause comes into operation. Here, again, is an illustration of the operation of this Clause. It would appear to function so that the owner of the requisitioned land, from whom land is to be compulsorily acquired, will not be entitled to claim from the £300 million fund for the reason that Clause 57 (1) says that the person to claim must be the owner on the appointed day, and this acquisition will take place before the appointed day. Therefore, I would pray in aid the observations which the right hon. Gentleman made during the discussion on the Clause, in answer to a point raised by me regarding compensation on the acquisition of requisitioned land. He clearly indicated then that it was the intention to pay restricted value in the middle case, and that the owner of the requisitioned land would have power to claim against the 300 million fund. I suggest that this is obviously not provided for in the Bill as it stands, and I support the Amendment and hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) tried to justify the Amendment on the ground that there were some differences in the way in which acquisition would work out, as between private persons buying land and acquisition by public authorities. Of course, whichever method is taken by private persons, the result will be the same. A private person buying would be aware of the Act, and, if the purchaser were to make a claim under Part V, that would be taken into account in the amount of the claim. In the aggregate, he would pay just the same, whether the arrangement was for the purchaser or the vendor to make the claim.

The right hon. Gentleman is making the assumption that, in fact, the compensation payable and the development chargè will be identical. If that were so, it would not matter, but, when a private person is buying, he will have to pay the development charge and meet the compensation. The public authority, under compulsory acquisition, will not get any compensation, but the compensation will be paid to the vendor, arid there may be a substantial difference.

I was not assuming that the development charge would be equal to the amount of the compensation. What I was suggesting, and it is a perfectly simple proposition, was that the purchaser is prepared to pay a certain amount, and he will calculate how much compensation he is likely to get and what development charge he is likely to have to pay. He will do this as best he can, and he will arrive at a figure on that assumption. If he is to receive the compensation, the figure he will pay will be one figure, and, on the other hand if the vendor is to receive the compensation, the figure will be another figure. All these things will be worked out freely as between free contracting parties, and, no doubt, they will arrive at a result satisfactory to themselves. I see no reason, whatever individuals may do in buying and selling property, why that should necessarily govern the basis of compulsory purchase A voluntary sale and purchase may be done by private arrangement, and either the vendor or the purchaser claims the compensation. If, indeed, I had accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), this Amendment would have been quite inappropriate. It arises only because this applies to cases after the Royal Assent has been given to this Bill and before the appointed day. Nobody suggests that, after the appointed day, there should not be paid the restricted value, as if permission were given only for development under the Third Schedule and for no other development. The hon. Gentleman does not suggest that?

In that case, only the restricted value would pass between the vendor and the purchaser. For some extraordinary reason the right hon. Gentleman has put private sales in one way, and compulsory sales in another.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Private sales will be carried out in exactly the same way. The purchaser will take into account what is going to happen on the appointed day, especially now that he has been warned that it is not very far off, and he will, presumably, pay a price which has been arrived at after consideration of the fact that, after the appointed day, the development value passes to the State. Therefore, there is going to be no real difference between the two. The hon. Gentleman is now seeking to make a distinction between land bought before the appointed day, and land bought after that date. I thought earlier that hon. Members opposite were going to divide in protest against this complexity of having two different bases. Now it is they themselves who, by this Amendment, are trying to get a different basis of compensation. Is that not right?

The right hon. Gentleman rather invites me to intervene. The Amendment under discussion points out the defects in the proposed new Clause and the disadvantage of having this intervening period during which a different standard of assessment is to be applied. Indeed, the whole force of the Amendment is that this new Clause should be dropped. I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention w the point which he makes between private and compulsory purchase. On a private purchase taking place, how on earth is the vendor or the purchaser to know the amount of compensation that they are likely to obtain out of the £300 million fund, when the scheme has never been formulated and may not be formulated at the time that transactory takes place? How can they assess the amount of development charge that may be put on that property?

Unless all transactions between private persons are to come to an end on the appointed day—which I do not for a moment believe—and before the Treasury scheme is announced, people will have to make up their minds as to what compensation they are likely to get out of the fund, and will have to make their purchase on some kind of assumption, even, perhaps, as to what the development charge may be, although that would be easier to determine. They will have 'to make some kind of estimate of how much will be recovered out of the £300 million in order to arrive at the purchase price and the selling price of land. That will apply equally before the appointed day as after the appointed day. Therefore, this difficulty does not arise on account of the new Clause. I think I am right in saying that what the Amendment seeks to do is to add one more complexity to the Bill, which hon. Members opposite have submitted, in regard to the acquisition Clause, is already complex enough. On the point made by the hon. Gentleman about Clause 57 (1), the fact is that we have been moving so rapidly that both he and I overlooked the fact that we have already dealt with that very point in an Amendment which I moved yesterday to Clause 84, page 91, line 26. We had foreseen this point, and the Amendment which I then moved was intended to cover it.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a much simpler Clause than the one we have just been discussing. Local authorities are sometimes required to take restrictive planning action, at the request of Government Departments, in the interest of some national service. By doing this, the authority concerned may incur expenditure and the necessity of paying compensation, towards which it is only equitable that the taxpayer should contribute either in whole or in part. This Clause deals only with planning action taken in the interest of a service provided by a Government Department, the cost of which is to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Road Fund. The particular restrictions which we have in mind are primarily those in connection with height of development around airfields and prospective trunk roads, although there are, of course, other possibilities. We believe that where local authorities are required to take this restrictive planning action in the interest of a national service, it is only right that they should be compensated for that service, and this Clause is intended to secure that end.

I think it is a reasonable proposition that if a local authority is rendered liable to pay compensation because of something done by the central Government, the central Government should be entitled to contribute to the fund of that local authority in order to meet that charge. That, I understand, is the real purpose of this Clause, and we support it. However, I remember that, on an earlier occasion, when I was asking about people who had non-conforming uses on such land as the result of obedience to Government behests, there was not the same readiness on that occasion to accept the view that the Government should pay.

My feeling is that this Clause does not go far enough. It seems to me that when the Government come along and require a local authority to do the kind of thing mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary— I admit that there may be many other things—the Clause should say that they "shall" pay to the local authority money in respect of compensation. At the moment it is permissive, whereas, in my view, it ought to be mandatory. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what he feels about that?

I should say that the amount of compensation could be safely left as a matter for negotiation between the local authority concerned and the Government Department. Knowing local authorities as I do, I should imagine they will exact their pound of flesh in these matters, and I think it is quite safe to leave the Clause as it is.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This proposed new Clause deals with the provisions contained in paragraph 7 of the Ninth Schedule which states:

"Any agreement for restricting the planning, development or use of land made under Section thirty-four of the Act of 1932… shall cease to have effect on the appointed day."

Under the Act of 1932, most valuable agreements were made between landlords t, on the one hand and public authorities on the other, to secure amenities for the benefit of the public at large. In Standing Committee we raised the larger question, which I shall raise again if I get the opportunity, of the inadvisability of bringing these agreements to an end. I believe it is a mistake to bring all these agreements suddenly to a conclusion. The Minister says that the planning powers contained in this Bill would enable anything that was done by agreement to be done by this planning scheme. I doubt whether that is so. I am advised by many experts in this matter that some of these agreements made under the Act of 1932 enter into more detail concerning various points in connection with the use of land, which in their cumulative effect are very valuable from the point of view of the public, than is possible in any statutory instrument.

That is the major proposition, and it is far more important than the point raised by this Clause. This is only a secondary offshoot from that general proposition that these agreements should be honoured and not swept aside in this ruthless manner. The point raised by the new Clause is illustrated by the case of an owner, or his predecessor, who has entered into an agreement with a local authority giving access to his land or doing something for the preservation of the countryside, and whose interest in making the agreement was the common interest of all the inhabitants in the locality, that its beauty and character should be preserved. He was acting in a double capacity—first, as the owner of the land with power to enter into a contract, and, secondly, as a citizen of the locality itself, so that the agreement was of benefit to all. In these cases— and I am advised they do exist—there will be no consideration whatever of the position of the owner or his predecessor in relation to these agreements. When these agreements are brought to an end by the operation of the Ninth Schedule on the appointed day, if action contrary to the agreement is taken by the planning authority, as may well happen—there may arise a generation which will take a different view of the joint property of the countryside—a claim for compensation should be considered. As long as the matter is allowed to rest on the agreement, which I submit should not be disturbed, there is no question of any money passing to anybody. If the agreement is broken by statute, and something detrimental to the owner is put in its place by the planning authority, if he or his predecessor in title can show that no remuneration has been received for what he did, a claim for compensation should be considered.

I now understand what I have had some difficulty in understanding hitherto—the purpose of this Clause. The Clause is not at all intelligible, and I had great difficulty in understanding what the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to secure. I now gather that he wants to raise the whole question of Section 34 agreements. I do not think the Clause itself would stand that critical examination. For one thing, it is extremely vague and difficult to follow, and I do not think the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind would be achieved. I will give two reasons why I believe that to be so. Let me refer to the example which the right hon. Gentleman himself gave. It seems to me that the owner who has entered into an agreement will not have suffered any damage and will not necessarily become entitled to compensation, because it is difficult to see where the question of depreciation arises. Secondly, this Clause would only operate if there had been no consideration at all. In fact, there will have been some consideration in all cases because—to take this example—the fact that the amenity has been preserved since the agreement was entered into would be some consideration. In any case, therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this Clause could not stand.

I should like to say a word about the Section 34 agreements in general The matter was raised in Standing Committee, and I then promised that I would examine the question of these agreements. I think it was generally admitted that these agreements were probably a mixed bag. Some were good and some were bad. There were some which one would probably wist to preserve in the spirit if not in the letter, and there were some which a local authority ought to be able to abrogate. It is very difficult to talk about these agreements in the abstract. There are probably some thousands of them which have been entered into between a local authority and an individual, with no obligation on the part of the local authorities to communicate the contents of these agreements, let alone to submit copies of them, to the Ministry. Frankly, we have no definite knowledge of what kind of agreements have been generally entered into, and whether by and large, they are advantageous or otherwise.

We have accordingly communicated with the local authorities—1,500 of them —and have asked them to submit to us any agreements which are still in force. We have had replies from a thousand of these local authorities, and it appears that, in many cases, a number of agreements are in force. I do not suggest that my Department will examine every one of them—I do not think that would be necessary—but we will examine a sufficient number of them to enable us to get a good idea of the general character of these agreements. Based on what we find, I am prepared to give an undertaking that the matter will be considered again. I am by no means wedded to the proposal contained in the Ninth Schedule that all these agreements should be abrogated. It was thought that the new system of planning could probably reproduce all that was best in the agreements that had been made, and would have the further advantage of abrogating those agreements which were not in the public interest.

However, I see the force of what was stated in Committee and of what the right hon. Gentleman has now said, that some of these agreements may have entered into considerable detail, and that it is in the public interest to preserve them. One would not wish to abrogate something which has already been achieved with great care and, very often, with great public spirit. Therefore, I am prepared to give an undertaking that the matter will be re-examined in the light of our survey of the existing agreements, and, if necessary, an Amendment will be put down at a later stage.

I also wish to say that I would not assent to one of the parties to an agreements extracting all the benefits from it and then saying, "Thank you very much. I now abrogate it." I think the best of these agreements are mutual affairs, and where a party has received some benefit from it, neither he nor his successors in title should then be able to abrogate the agreement, and to put the other party to the agreement in a worse position. I am prepared to examine that aspect of it as well. Of course, every owner of land becomes subject to the provisions of this Bill when it becomes law, and the person who has entered into an agreement, can be in no better position as regards the provisions of the Bill than any other person; but I imagine that nobody would suggest he should be. With that proviso, I am prepared to examine the matter in order to ensure that fair treatment is given to persons who have entered into agreements in good faith, where for reasons of sound public policy the basis of the agreement has changed, and, in consequence, the person who entered into the agreement suffers loss. In those circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this new Clause.

I am very glad to hear what the Minister has said. I am certain he is wise to look into the matter again. I would add only a very few words on the two points he raised. First of all, he raised the question of fairness for those who have entered into these agreements. Under the Clauses of the Bill as it stands, the very injustice which he has clearly recognised as wrong would be at any rate possible. Therefore, on the ground of justice alone, it would be necessary for him to make some further provision. The main point about which I wish to speak is the advantage of these agreements, in many cases, to the public. This is, of course, the provision under which many private open spaces have been preserved. The owner of the land enters into a covenant to retain the land, or part of it, as a private open space, which can be of the very greatest advantage to town planning.

; A private open space does not always give the public access. If the public has no access to a private open space, how can the question of compensation arise?

I am not dealing with the question of compensation for the moment. I am dealing with the question of the use of the land. I do not want to go too far into the question of compensation, for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. These agreements have served a good public purpose, because they have, in fact, preserved much land as private open spaces, and in other ways. For that reason Section 34 of the 1932 Act was found, by amenity societies and civic societies, to be a valuable instrument. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that there were certain risks in the procedure. There was at least the possibility that some unwise agreements would be entered into under this statutory provision. It was for that reason that, when Parliament came to legislate again on the subject in 1943, we provided, as the Minister well knows, in Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, that:

"No agreement made after the commencement of this Act under Section thirty-four of the principal Act for restricting the planning, development or use of any land shall have effect unless it has been approved by the Minister."

That was to guard against the possible dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

It was not thought right by Parliament, when they legislated in 1943, to make any further interference with agreements made under Section 34 of the 1932 Act, because of the belief of the Department that those agreements taken as a whole were very much in the public interest. It is perfectly true, that the inquiries which could be made at that time were not nearly so extensive, or on anything like the same scale as the Minister says he has made and is making, very properly, at the present time. I think the Committee will welcome the undertaking given by the Minister, to look into this matter again, because both in the interests of planning and for the sake of avoiding injustice some further provisions in the Bill will be necessary. In view of what the Minister has said, I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will think fit to withdraw the Motion.

I welcome the announcement of the Minister, that he will look into the problem again. I can only envisage it in the rather narrow field of a local planning authority. I must say, from the point of view of an authority which submitted to the Minister its interim development scheme well before the war, I can quite see that there will be a certain amount of difficulty. A large number of agreements were entered into, the result of which was that the owners refrained from developing, or selling for development, a lot of land which, I am afraid, would otherwise have gone. That was the result of their agreement, so something has definitely been forgone. There will be a feeling that some of them have been let down if they find the other side of the agreement in any way not implemented, because it was really a question of quite a large number of self-denying ordinances. After the Bill becomes law, the general tendency will be to restrict very much more land, so that people will have lost their chance for ever of developing land which, in some cases, they actually bought with a view to development.

I welcome the statement made by the Minister. His inquiry into the two points mentioned will be well worth while, and I am sure the statement he has made will be received with considerable relief by many persons, including amenities societies, who are very interested in this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

I beg to move, in page 116, line 41, to leave out from the beginning to "including," and to insert:

"since the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven."

Paragraph I of this Schedule includes within the classes of development excepted from payment of development charge the rebuilding of a building which has been demolished within a period of 10 years before the appointed day. The significant phrase there is "the appointed day." The effect of the Amendment would be to substitute for the appointed day 7th January, 1937, that is to say, 10 years before the publication of the Bill. The Amendment has been moved because of an undertaking given in Committee to consider extending that period. The Schedule as it was originally was quite in line with the Acts of 1932 and 1934, but the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) urged that an extension of the period up to 15 years should take place. This Amendment does not go the whole length of 15 years, but it will extend the period roughly by about one year, from 18 months to two and a half years, and, therefore, it goes a considerable distance to meet the desires of the hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members opposite. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept the Amendment in that spirit as being a substantial concession towards what they desire.

I welcome the Amendment and acknowledge with gratitude that it goes some distance towards meeting the point we raised in Committee. Apart from the extension of time, the substitution of the fixed date is another element of improvement, because the original words dated from the unknown fixed point of the appointed day, and it is well that those concerned with the matter should know a definite calendar date from which it operates.

I beg to move, in page 117, line 33, to leave out paragraphs i and 2, and to insert:

"1. For the purpose of assessing any compensation payable by virtue of a decision or order under Section eighteen or Section twenty-four of this Act, being compensation in respect of the diminution in value of any interest in land, Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, (which prescribes rules for the assessment of compensation by an official arbitrator), shall, so far as applicable and subject to any necessary modifications, have effect as it has effect for the purpose of assessing compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land."

This Amendment and the next Amendment, are rendered necessary as a result of the conversion of 1939 values set out in paragraphs I and 2 of the Schedule to the current market values.

I beg to move, in page 125, line 21, column 2, to leave out "subsection," and to insert "subsections."

This Amendment and the next Amendment should be taken together. Their effect is to give to the Minister of Transport or to the local highway authority powers to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of providing a public right of way alternative to one which it is proposed to extinguish.

I beg to move, in page 125, line 3O, column 2, to leave out "subsection (3) shall be omitted;" and to insert:

"(3) The Minister of Transport or a local highway authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of providing any public right of way which is to be provided as an alternative to a right of way extinguished under this Section; and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of land under this subsection, and accordingly shall have effect—

(a) as if this subsection had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act;

(b) as if this subsection were included among the enactments specified in paragraph