May I ask for your guidance, Sir, on. a point of Order. I have always been given to understand that the object of sending Bills to Standing Committee was to relieve the House of work. We are now faced on the Report stage of a Bill with a large number of new Clauses, new Schedules and Amendments. May I ask whether the Standing Committees are really for the purpose of relieving the House of a vast amount of work, and what is the position if we are to go on having an immense amount of work put on to our shoulders on the Report stage in this way.

The hon. Member is quite right. The Committee stage of a Bill is a stage in which Amendments are put into the Bill. The Order Paper would lead me to think that some of them, at least were not considered in Committee, but were left over to the Report stage. For my own sake, I should be very glad if it were otherwise; it is undesirable that so much should be put on to the Report stage, and is a practice that we ought not to encourage.

May I take it that it is clear that there should be a general endeavour on the part of Standing Committees upstairs to get as much of the amending of the Bill done as is humanly possible. Am I correct in thinking that that is right?

The Report stage should be one on which we should do what has been left over from the Committee.

May I say as a member of the Committee that one consistently urged that too much should not be left over till the Report stage, but the Government took the attitude that many drafting amendments would be required, and that is the reason why they were left over.

Perhaps I may offer a word of explanation. It is recognised, of course, that in normal cases the maximum of work that can be done should be completed on the Committee stage. In the case of this Bill, as the hon. Member knows—we had the advantage of his attendance in a Committee of which he was not a member—there were very exceptional circumstances. This Bill was introduced in conditions which made it seem right to me—I certainly do not in the least apologise for it—to take the fullest possible advantage of the discussions in order to obtain the best possible Bill. The reason why so much is left for final formulation at the Report stage is simply this. This is a new sphere of legislation in which there is very little precedent. It is a matter of the greatest possible intricacy and difficulty to find a satisfactory and correct draft. I believe it would not have been in the interest of good legislation, and it would not really have saved the time of the House, to rush matters rapidly in Committee, and I believe we have saved the time of the House in the long run, in addition to making for better legislation, by taking a little longer time to consider the actual words and putting them down on Report.

Of course, I do not impute blame to anyone, and I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation in all its details. It is essential that the House should give careful consideration particularly where there are no precedents.

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

This Clause is brought forward to meet a suggestion made in Committee that it ought to be a matter of statutory obligation that capital money should be used on capital account. It is undoubtedly a principle of good finance. Such a provision is always made in the schemes, but it is a good thing, no doubt, to get it on the Statute Book.

I beg to move, in line 3, after the word "as", to insert the words:

"in the case of the London County Council, the Treasury, and in other cases".

The reason for this Amendment is that, in the case of the London County Council, financial operations are, by virtue of the London County Council (Finance) (Consolidation) Act, 1912, under the control of the Treasury, and it would be undesirable to make an exception as regards town planning. It is, therefore, suggested that the new Clause should be amended to provide that in the case of the London County Council the allocation of receipts of the kind referred to should be as the Treasury and not as the Minister of Health may approve.

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that it will be more convenient to maintain the existing procedure and not to introduce any anomaly. I shall have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment.

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

This Clause is introduced in response to representations made in Committee that these powers would be a useful addition to the provision enabling Orders to be made for the preservation of buildings of architectural interest. The object of the Clause is to provide an additional safeguard against the pulling down of a building of special architectural or historic interest. It was thought that the proper final authoritative advice to be taken upon the matter should be that of the Commissioners of Works, who are directly charged with the safeguarding of public buildings and beautiful monuments and who have special knowledge of the matter. I recognise, as the Minister of Health, that the Commissioners of Works are looked upon as our expert and particular authority in this matter, so the decision is left in this case to consultation with the Commissioners of Works.

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

The new Clause looks formidable, but it is really on a very small point in connection with the scheme of the Bill. It is to meet a point raised in the Committee by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) and upon which there was general agreement that such a Clause should be inserted. This is the kind of Clause which required rather careful consideration and drafting in order to have it ready for the Bill, and I apologise for the necessity of bringing it forward for the first time at this stage. The object of the Clause is as follows: It is now provided in schemes of planning that, where roads or streets are made or improved, the local authority, in anticipation of development, may recover from frontagers or persons benefiting a reasonable part of the cost. The object of the Clause is to meet the objection taken in the Committee, and to make it quite sure that the part of the cost which the planning authority is empowered to recover from the frontagers and other persons benefiting in respect of streets is not greater under the plan than it would have been under the general law, the Private Street Works Act and so on. It was thought right in Committee that we should not give the planning authority power to recover more under the plan than it would have had power to recover under the general law. The effect of this provision in the matter of recovering part of the cost of the improvement is to confine the powers of the planning authority to the powers established by the general law.

While I support the Clause, I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. I should like to know how it is proposed to carry out the provision that there shall be no greater charge than that under the present law. For instance, under the Private Street Works Act it rests with the magistrates to say what are reasonable works. How, under this Clause, can an owner secure a decision of the magistrate whether the works which the local authority has carried out, or proposes to carry out, are reasonable, having regard to the user of the street which would be required by the frontagers as distinct from the user which would be required by the general public at large? Is there any provision which would prevent the frontagers from being called upon to pay the charges at an earlier date than they can be called upon to pay them either under Section 150 of the Public Health Act or under the Private Street Works Act? One of the questions which arises, at any rate under the Private Street Works Act, and which magistrates have to decide is whether or not the proposed works are being carried out at a reasonable time, having regard to the user of the traffic. It seems to me that nothing in this Clause could prevent the owners of frontages being called upon to pay more than a reasonable charge at an earlier data than they would otherwise have to pay under present legislation.

The reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn), is that the planning schemes, in accordance with the procedure established under the Statute, would apply automatically the provisions of the general law, the Acts of 1875 and 1892. Therefore, the procedure under the scheme would necessarily follow the procedure as laid down in the general Statutes to which I have referred.

I beg to move, in line 5, after the word "would," to insert the words:

"at the date of the commencement of the works".

I move the Amendment in order to try to ascertain the date at which this provision is intended to operate. I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman had the intention, in fixing the provision of the cost, to cover the cost at the date of the scheme or at the date of the commencement of the work. We might have a scheme forecast into the future where the figures might be very different. The cost at the date of the scheme and the cost 20 years afterwards when the road has really been made might be very different. I conceive that there might be a good deal of discussion in the courts upon the question as to the date at which this is intended to operate. I have merely put down the Amendment in order to get an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman so that appropriate words may be inserted.

The intention of the Clause is that to which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has referred, and desires to secure by the Amendment, namely, the cost of street works to be charged to frontagers is the cost at the commencement of the work. That being the intention, the words should be as clear as possible, and I do not think that any words could be more appropriate for the purpose in mind than those which the hon. and learned Member has suggested, and I am prepared to accept them.

On a point of Order, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if the new Clause—(Recovery of betterment from owners of property increased in value)—next upon the Paper, were moved as an Amendment to the existing betterment Clause—Clause 21—of the Bill. Clause 21 is of very great importance indeed and was discussed in the Committee stage, and the proposed new Clause which has been placed upon the Paper is the result of a promise by the Minister to bring forward certain Amendments. Owing to the difficulties about time, the Clause was only put upon the Paper the day before yesterday, and the bodies interested in matters of this kind, and Members of the House, have only had an extremely limited time to consider the new Clause, which is of very great importance. I therefore suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if it were moved as an Amendment to the existing betterment Clause rather than as a new Clause at this stage of the Bill.

I have no objection if it meets with the wishes of the Minister.

There is a great deal in what has been said by the noble lord. I considered it appropriate and correct to put this matter down in the form of a new Clause, because it stands by itself and the House might have been justly surprised if such a substantial matter had been put down in the form of an Amendment.

Having done that in the first place, it is undoubtedly desirable that more time should be allowed for consideration of the Clause, and, if it is not out of order, I shall prefer to withdraw it as a new Clause and to move it as an Amendment to Clause 21, which it is possible we may not reach to-day.

That course is not out of order.

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

I move this Clause in order to meet a line of criticism which was taken in Committee and which appears to have very much force in it. Under the Bill, the planning authority has power, subject to the rights of compensation, to make orders controlling and preserving woodlands, which is very much in the mind of the public at the present time. It was stated in Committee that unless we took proper care in regard to the control and preservation of woodlands the result would be that we should deprive the owners of the woodlands of the right to manage their woodlands according to the principles of good forestry. The consequence might be that woodlands would be dealt with in an unintelligent way and that trees would pass beyond maturity, rot and fall into decay. There was much force in the contention that it is necessary to do something in order to preserve the powers of those responsible for the woodlands, so that they may deal with them in accordance with the principles of good forestry. The New Clause sets before itself two objects. In the first place it seeks to preserve the proper management of woodlands in the hands of the owners and not indirectly or directly to transfer it to the local authorities who are not accustomed to, or experts in, forestry. In the second place, the Clause seeks to make sure that no specific power or control exercised by a planning authority shall be so exercised as to prevent the woodlands being dealt with in accordance with the principles of good forestry. We therefore take precautions so that nothing shall be done to prevent the woodland and forestry industry from being carried on on good sensible lines or being turned once more into a lucrative and profitable industry. The Clause also provides that any prohibition of any specific way of dealing with woodlands shall be subject to an appeal to the appropriate authority, and I am sure the House will agree that the most appropriate authority would be the Forestry Commissioners. Therefore, they are nominated in the Clause as the arbitral authority in all cases of appeal as to proper conduct in the control of woods in accordance with the principles of good forestry.

The new Clause only appeared on the Order Paper to-day for the first time and there has been little opportunity to study it and no possibility of consulting the Forestry Commission about it. My right hon. Friend, however, approached the chairman of the Forestry Commission yesterday, who got into touch with me, and I am authorised by the chairman of the Forestry Commission to state that he considers the Clause a sound one. For what my poor opinion may be worth, I confirm that view, and I have no doubt that it will be approved by our colleagues, the remaining Forestry Commissioners. From the point of view of the private owner of woodlands, and it may be the corporate owners of woodlands, I also think it is satisfactory. It is inevitable in these matters that at times there may be a division of opinion between possibly the less informed persons who would regret the removal of picturesque old trees, such as we all love to see about the countryside, and those who take the longer view and realise that, to maintain permanently the beauty of a woodland, when old trees reach or pass a certain age they must be removed and their place taken by others. It is a very poor policy in forestry or landscape, where you have to think of all time, to leave the wreck of a fine tree, because it retains some elements of the picturesque, until it falls to pieces and there is nothing to take its place. I think the Clause is as sound an attempt as we can expect to be devised to reconcile the different views of those who are equally desirous of maintaining the beauty of the countryside. I welcome the Clause and hope the House will accept it.

I should like to raise one point so far as the Clause gives any right to local authorities to control woodlands. Will it be possible for a local authority to prevent the sale of timber should the owner require it for the payment of Death Duty? One of the priceless heritages of the people of this country is the beauty of England, which has been provided for them in the past 100 or 150 years by the private owners of the land, but the march of democracy is such that large estates have to pay heavy death duties upon the death of the owner. I am not contesting that matter at the moment but merely stating the fact. It is also well known that one of the sources of revenue for the payment of Death Duty is the sale of timber, and it is not going to be fair if, on the one hand, the State assesses certain value on a property which has to be paid on the death of the owner, and with the next breath deprives the owner of a means of paying those death duties. We ought to have an assurance from the Minister that where an owner desires to sell timber in order to pay Death Duties no difficulty should be placed in his way, or, if a difficulty is placed in his way, that the amount should be reduced by the value of the timber which he would otherwise have been able to raise. It will make it almost impossible to carry out the liabilities which the State puts upon owners if restrictions of that kind are put in the Bill.

This new Clause is in answer to a discussion which I raised in Committee and we are very grateful to the Minister for his attempt to meet us, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir Q. Courthope) that it is very hard that we have seen this Clause for the first time to-day. I think we should have some little time to consider this new Clause. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) has pointed out the serious effect it may have. The expression "timber" is to include all forest products. I do not know what that means. It might fulfil the intention of the Minister, and as long as it leaves the management of forestry operations on big estates in the hands of the owners that is what we want, because we believe that they can deal with these matters better than a local authority. Nor do we object to an umpire like the Forestry Commissioners, who have great knowledge in these matters from the business point of view as well as from the point of view of beauty. At the same time we must reserve any judgment on the Clause until we have thoroughly considered it, and it may be necessary to move Amendments in another place. With the hon. and gallant Member for Rye I agree that it does meet the difficulty to some extent, and if we find that this is the best way of dealing with the matter we shall be quite content; but if on further consideration we find that it is necessary to move some Amendments I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse to consider them.

While I have not had time to consider the effect of the Clause I should like to thank the Minister of Health for having moved it. As I understand it, if a man requires to cut down timber on his estate to pay Death Duties he will be allowed to do so; but he will have to replant. No doubt he will replant; but if he has been mulcted in heavy Death Duties he may not have the money to replant at once and, therefore, I think be should be allowed in such circumstances to cut down timber without being forced to replant.

I hope the Minister of Health will consider carefully Sub-section (4) where we find that the expression "timber" includes all forest products. I am informed that "forest products" includes doors and anything which is made of wood. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Minister to include such things, and that it only means standing timber.

The answer to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) is that under the Bill such persons will have the right to claim compensation within 12 months. As regards the other points that have been raised my right hon. Friend will be willing to consider any Amendments that may be considered necessary. His intention is to meet the difficulties mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown). With regard to the point of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), I do not think the hon. Member is correct, but the right hon. Gentleman will look into it.

I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary for a somewhat clearer explanation. He says that an owner can claim compensation within 12 months. Can he claim compensation up to the amount for which he would have been able to sell the timber?

The position is this. The Clause only applies to woods which are actually under control. That is the first thing to realise. In the case of controlled woods where the heir on the death of the owner proposes to cut down timber in order to pay Death Duties and the local authority says "no", he might say that it is the prudent and obvious thing to realise this asset. He goes to the Forestry Commissioners and they decide that it is in accordance with the principles of good husbandry that he should be allowed to cut down the timber. That disposes of two of the cases. There remains, therefore, only the case in which woods are controlled and where the Forestry Commissioners say that they should not be cut because they are not ripe for cutting. If in that case there is any damage or loss to the owner by a refusal to allow him to cut his woods he can claim compensation within 12 months.

The new Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis)—,

"Obligation to purchase where land is reserved for public open space";

and—

"As to land reserved for private open space".

are not; in order, as they increase the charge.

I submit respectfully with regard to the Clause dealing with the obligation to purchase where land is reserved for open spaces, that in Clause 26 of the Bill specific provision is made for the expenditure of money for this purpose and that all that the new Clause does is to regulate the way in which that expenditure shall be made.

No doubt provision is made in Clause 26 for the expenditure of money for this purpose, but the new Clause may increase the charge under Clause 26.

May I with the greatest respect put this aspect of the matter to you? Assuming that the further large powers which are given to local authorities are in the public interests and will increase the value of property in an area, therefore the power which is given to local authorities to purchase these open spaces would actually add to the value of the property owned by a community and would not therefore create a charge on the community.

That may be so, but, on the other hand, it might create a charge.

This Amendment is not in order, because it would alter the rating authority, and therefore it would be necessary to recommit the Bill.

I understand that it would be necessary to recommit the Bill in order to deal with this Amendment. I raise no difficulty on the merits of the Amendment, but as regards procedure it will be necessary to recommit the Bill in respect of one or two other Amendments which I have to propose and if it will facilitate procedure I will include the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) in the order for recommittal which I shall have to propose.

That would be quite in order.

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 1 and 2.

This is only a drafting Amendment and is necessary having regard to later Amendments.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, to leave out from the word "land" to the end of the paragraph.

This also is a drafting Amendment. The House is aware that the Fourth Schedule contains a great many things which previously had been done by regulations, and this Amendment will be leading up to the fourth Schedule.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This raises, perhaps, the most vital issue of the Bill as between the two sides in the main controversy in which we have to get a compromise—between those who wish to rationalise the development of the country as a whole and those who wish to protect the proper interests of the existing owners. I think that all those who nave been through the Committee stage of the Bill, and I hope all who are keen on town planning, will recognise the extreme importance of doing justice to the private owners and of doing nothing excessive under mere theory, nothing which is uneconomical and nothing which would spoil the real interests of town planning. I use the expression "to spoil the interests of town planning" because, although you may get the best Measure on the Statute Book, you will surely enough spoil the working out of such a Measure if there is either injustice or false economy involved. Sooner or later the schemes are held up and the result is that town planning is spoiled. It is in the interests of the town planner as well as others that nothing which is excessive shall be done.

I recognise that there is a great liability, in local government and national government, on the part of those who are concerned with one particular department of it, to go ahead regardless of other interests and often regardless of economy. It is right that in the working out of this Measure we should try to see that there is every proper safeguard, both in the interests of public economy and in the interest of the existing owner. That being the case, I move this Amendment as raising the whole question. There are four Amendments on the Paper in my name. This Sub-section is to the effect that if the Minister is asked for an approval of the scheme on the Resolution stage, not on its final or committal stage, he has to give or withhold his sanction, but under Sub-section (2) that power of his is limited. The Minister shall not approve any such Resolution unless he is satisfied on certain points. It is that particular limitation of the Minister's powers to which town planners object. The limitation is as regards land which is not likely to be developed. That is a vague phrase which it is very difficult to define, and it caused a great deal of consideration in Committee. The Minister in offering the compromise which now stands in the Clause definitely stated that it was a compromise between the two sides. In outlining the Amendment which is now this Sub-section he said that he would not approve of a Resolution unless he was satisfied that the land was likely to be developed.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier to-day you ruled that it was out of Order to move anything that would create a further charge either on the local authorities or the taxpayer. I submit if this Amendment were carried and if these extra areas of land were inserted in the schemes, that it would most certainly mean a very large extra local charge, if not a charge on the Exchequer.

On that point of Order I would call attention to the fact that the Financial Resolution covers all the matters that are in the opening paragraph of the Bill and includes the development and planning of all land.

That may be so, but if the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) is right the Amendment would increase the charge.

It would not increase the charge under the Financial Resolution.

That may be so when the charge on the Bill as it stands is covered by the Financial Resolution. You cannot increase a charge in the Report stage, even though the charge may come within the Financial Resolution.

As the Bill left this House after Second Reading it did not contain this Sub-section. This sub-section was inserted in Standing Committee. Is it not in order on the Report stage to take up a Sub-section which was inserted in a Bill in Committee, but was not there when the Bill got a Second Reading?

If the effect of taking out this Sub-section would be that a charge might be imposed it would not be in order to take out the Sub-section. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the Amendment would increase the charge.

I have no desire to prevent the discussion of these Amendments. My only wish is to assist you, Mr. Speaker, in arriving at such a decision as you may be pleased to make on the point of Order. As to the actual effect of the Sub-section, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is perfectly right in stating that this Sub- section is a new one inserted since the Bill received its Second Reading. Its whole effect is to restrict the areas which can be planned. It is, therefore, all directed to limitation. It is obvious that the removal of the Sub-section at this stage would increase the areas that can be planned. As to the effect of that upon any charge, I do not think that, on the spur of the moment, I could say that either an increase or diminution of the area that can be planned would directly impose or affect a charge upon the public purse. Nevertheless, undoubtedly, an increase of the area that can be planned must have an indirect effect upon certain expenses and charges. Therefore, indirectly, the financial consideration of the charge is not irrelevant.

May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Financial Memorandum which accompanied the Bill when it was presented for Second Reading. That Memorandum stated that the only provisions in the Bill which involved a charge upon the Exchequer were those contained in Clauses 32 and 35. In my submission, no further charge will be involved by the omission of this Sub-section. The resolution will be passed by the local authority in exactly the same way. The only question will be whether or not the Minister gives his approval and no charge upon the Exchequer of any sort or kind will arise out of the Minister's approval.

May I submit, Sir, that the charge is likely to be upon the rates, and I understood you to rule a proposed new Clause out of order just now because it would have imposed a charge, not on the Exchequer, but on the rates. If we extend the number of authorities entitled to plan, as we would by the removal of this Sub-section, we would undoubtedly impose or run the risk of imposing an extra charge on the rates.

May I direct your attention, Sir, to Clause 7 (1,b) under which local authorities, having passed a resolution, are required to serve notices in the case of every rateable hereditament in the area to which the resolution applies on the ratepayer thereof and if the area is increased there must be a direct charge on the local authority in respect of serving notices.

It seems to me that this Sub-section has been inserted in the Bill with the object of limiting the effect of the Clause, and that the deletion of the Sub-section would remove that limitation. That obviously may affect the charge and the Amendment is therefore out of order.

May I ask whether the House is not now considering the Report of the Committee which dealt with the Bill and is it not the case that we are not in any way bound by the Report of the Committee—that is as regards the whole House and not merely the 60 Members who were Members of the Committee? The House may wish to restore the Bill to the form in which it was when it left the House. Surely, it is not giving the true power which ought to belong to Members of this House who were not on the Standing Committee, to say that they cannot do so.

That is a different point altogether. All that we have to consider now is the Bill, as it has corns from the Committee, in its amended form.

I submit, Sir, that we are only bound by the Financial Resolution and that the Financial Resolution does not include this limitation which has been put in by the Committee upstairs.

The point at issue has nothing to do with the Financial Resolution.

In order that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may be quite clear, may I ask whether it is that on the Report stage we cannot add to the expense involved in the Bill as it leaves the Committee, even though the Bill as it was originally introduced would have permitted us to cover the expense in dispute.

That is so. We must consider the Bill simply as it comes to us from the Committee.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, further to amplify that Ruling for the benefit of hon. Members. Is there any means by which the opinion of those Members of the House who were not on the Standing Committee, can be expressed on the desirability or otherwise of provisions passed in the Standing Committee which alter, radically, provisions contained in the Bill as it received a Second Reading? Is there any way in which the House can, on the Report stage, express its opinion that the intention of the Bill as it received a Second Reading is an intention to which the House wishes to adhere, and that it does not desire to have the Bill in the truncated form in which it has left the Standing Committee, or are Members of the House who were not on the Committee, completely helpless as regards any change made in the Bill which limits its extent?

The regular form in which that can be done is by moving to re-commit the part of the Bill which is in question. We have already this morning had the case of an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) which is out of order in the form in which it comes to us now, and as the Bill comes to us now, but in regard to which there is to be a Motion for recommittal of that part of the Bill in order that that Amendment may be discussed.

Is it in order to move that this Clause be re-committed so that we may have an opportunity of discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle)?

That can be done at a later stage, but it cannot be done now. It can be done at the same, time as the Motion for recommittal which is to be moved in respect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwich and several Amendments in the name of the Minister. There will be a Motion for recommittal with respect to the particular Clauses affected by those Amendments, and this Clause could be added to that recommittal Motion.

May I be allowed to make an appeal to the Minister to include this Clause in his. Motion for recommittal. It is one to which the Corporation of the great city which I have the honour to represent, attach the highest importance.

As I understand Mr. Speaker's Ruling, the Motion for recommittal would provide an adequate opportunity for the discussion of the principle of the Clause. I think possibly we shall find when we come to the time for that Motion that there will be adequate opportunity for considering this matter.

I hope that that statement does not mean that the Minister proposes to add this Clause to the list of Clauses which are to be recommitted but that the right hon. Gentleman only means that the Motion for recommittal will provide an adequate opportunity for discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman means that this Clause is to be sent back to the Committee I would point out that it will probably receive the same decision as it proved before.

Any hon. Member who wishes to do so can move the recommittal of a Clause but whether the Clause is recommitted or not is a matter for the House.

I was only asking the Minister whether his statement meant that he was going to move the recommittal of this particular Clause.

I assure the hon. Member that the point of my statement was directed in precisely the opposite direction. I was referring to a Motion for recommittal by another Member. I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) or the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) will probably move a Motion to recommit this Clause, and I said that that Motion would provide an opportunity for a discussion of the principle which my hon. Friends desire to raise.

Is it possible to move to recommit a Clause at any stage, even where the discussion of the Clause has commenced or even where that discussion has been completed?

The Motion for the recommittal of any Clause must come after OUT discussion of the Bill on Report.

That is at the end of the whole Report stage.

That is so.

Would it be in Order to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to accept the Motion for the recommittal of this Clause which affects the Bill very considerably?

Not at this stage.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, after the word "resolution", to insert the words:

"applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid".

Hon. Members will be aware that an alteration has been made in Clause 6 with regard to the submission of schemes to the Minister. The object of this Amendment is to put the law back as it stood before and not to give the additional powers to the Minister.

This is a limited case of the Amendment which has just been ruled out of order. Assuming that it is in order, it raises for a limited area precisely the same question which was raised on the previous Amendment, because the effect of this Amendment is as follows: The approval of the Minister of Health to a resolution would be required only where the resolution covered land outside the area of the local authority, and the restriction contained in Sub-sections 2 (a) and 2 (b) of Clause 6 would apply only to the outside lands. For the same reason as before, I should not be prepared to accept the Amendment, assuming it is in order. If we are to have a general discussion on the principle involved on a Motion for recommittal of the Clause, it might perhaps commend itself to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) to withdraw his Amendment and leave the general principle to be discussed then.

I think that possibly a good many of these Amendments are now out of order under your last ruling, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the Amendment now under discussion, I understand that this does not increase the area and that therefore it would be in order.

On a point of Order, I think, as a matter of fact, the effect of the Amendment would be to increase the planable area, because its effect would be to limit the number of cases in which the approval of the Minister is required for a scheme. The purpose of the approval of the Minister in this connection is to see that a limited area only is subjected to planning. Therefore, if you exclude a certain number of cases from the necessity for the Minister's approval on this ground, you exclude a certain number of cases from the limitations in area, and thus you increase the area.

I think the best plan would be to recommit this Clause with regard to this Amendment. That applies also to the next three Amendments on the Paper:

I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that, as regards any land as to which the Minister is not satisfied that it should be included for the general purposes of the scheme, he may nevertheless authorise the inclusion of such land for the sole purpose of being protected by a clause which may require that the owner or occupier shall give notice, not exceeding three months, to the local authority or responsible authority before permitting any development to take place or any change of user such as would have justified the Minister in permitting the land to have been included in the scheme had such development or change of user been known by him to be probable or contemplated at the date when he approved the resolution."

This proviso is intended not to include any further land in a planning scheme except with the sole object of giving the local authority notice if that land is going to turn from the static stage into the dynamic stage which will make it a suitable subject-matter for planning. If in a rural district there has been a large rural area which has not been planned, because the Minister under the operation of Sub-section (2) came to the conclusion that development was not likely, it might well be, as one knows from experience, that some bungaloid growth would suddenly appear in the centre of that rural space. The object of this proviso is that notice should be given of any change of development of that kind, not so as to bring the land into the scheme, but so as to give the local authority notice so that they may subsequently extend the scheme to an area which will then have become one in which development is taking place. It is obviously impossible for any local authority, or the Minister, or anyone else to be able to foretell with any degree of accuracy when development is likely to take place. He has to make the best shot he can at it.

I do not envy the right hon. Gentleman's job under Sub-section (2) of this Clause. Exactly how he is going to tell, for instance, whether a district like that in which I live, the Cotswolds, is likely to be developed in any part of it in the near future, I do not know, but I am assuming that there will be large agricultural areas there which may be left out of any town planning scheme. There have been in that area from time to time sudden growths. I remember very well one case where someone bought a more or less derelict farm and proceeded to turn it into a bungaloid town, which has most hideously disfigured the countryside. Nobody could possibly have anticipated that development, and if in the future some similar development took place, the local authority would be without notice of it, and would not have time before building started to include this new area in the plan.

The object of this proviso is that such an area shall be included in the scheme for the sole purpose of giving notice; that is to say, the local authority, having got out its scheme, says, "As regards this area marked blue on the plan, that only comes under Clause 6, which says that if anybody intends to change the nature of user there in such a way as to bring it within the type of land which might have been within the original scheme under Sub-section (2), he must give three months' notice of it to the local authority." That is the only provision which will apply to that particular area marked blue on the plan. That will enable the local authority to take steps, if it is necessary and advisable, to get the scheme extended or to get a new scheme to cover that area. In other words, it will stop sudden development in any area, prejudicing what would be a normal plan when that plan came into normal development in the ordinary way. I do not think anybody can take objection to this very reasonable provision. Hon. Members opposite, who take the view of private ownership and economy that this scheme should be limited as far as possible to land which is only likely to be developed in the immediate future, cannot, I am sure, object to a proviso which merely makes provision for a notification to the local authority where land which formerly has not come within that category is about to be brought within it by the owner.

That is the only provision which is included in this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, if not to accept it now—in view of the discussion which may be coming later on the proposal to recommit the Clause, which this might possibly prejudice—if Sub-section (2), after that discussion, remains as part of Clause 6, to get some sort of provision put in which will enable the local authority to be warned when land is likely to be changed by the owner from what would then be the unplanable category into the planable category. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will see the reasonableness of that, because any local authority in a rural district cannot of its own knowledge know when land is likely to change from the character of static to dynamic. [An HON. MEMBER: "Plans!"] Plans have certainly to be submitted in certain cases, and. if those plans are submitted, it might or might not get to the rural authority, but not necessarily to the authority responsible for planning, and the object of this proviso is that the authority who is responsible for the planning may have notice of the change from static to dynamic conditions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that he thinks this is a reasonable provision to be included.

On a point of Order. Does not this Amendment come within the Ruling given previously? As I understand, if this Amendment were passed, it would still be obligatory upon the local authority to serve notice upon owners under Clause 7. That seems to come under the same Ruling.

I came to the conclusion that it did not.

As the House will see, there is an alternative Amendment in my name immediately following that which is under discussion—In page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert the words

"Provided that, with respect to any land as to which the Minister is not so satisfied, he may make an order requiring the owner or owners of such land to give not less than three months' notice to the local authority in whose district the land is situated before developing the land or permitting it to be developed."

It will not have the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) which has been ruled out of Order, and yet is much more simple in its application, and more innocuous in its principle than the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. The criticism I have of his Amendment is in respect of the words

"would have justified the Minister in permitting the land".

I cannot believe that any judge would be able to interpret the proviso. Who is to say what "justified" means? For this reason I drafted the alternative proviso, which gives all that we want, namely, that restraint should be applied to premature planning, and the land would still be protected. I feel sure my hon. Friends opposite will see that there is reasonable ground for not opposing the Amendment, and I think the Minister will probably see considerable ground for accepting it. The effect would be to preserve the existing use and character of land, and yet in any change subsequently proposed there would be a reasonable opportunity —three months or more—for the land to be planned and sold by some supplementary and subsequent scheme. I think that the owners and local authority would be in perfect agreement on the question, and, from experience, I believe there would be no difficulty in coming to terms. I suggest that my Amendment does provide a suitable and easy alternative to both the other Amendments.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment before the House. It seems, perhaps, reasonable enough, but I believe that it would inevitably have the effect of laying the dead hand of the authority unnecessarily on areas which the Minister, in his wisdom, has decided to exclude from the Bill. The actual wording of the proviso, as my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken pointed out, would be unworkable, and there are other features about the proviso which, I think, the Minister ought not to accept. For instance, there are the words:

"before permitting any development to take place or any change of user such as would have justified the Minister".

As I read that, any development which takes place is not governed by the words—

"such as would have justified the Minister."

It seems, therefore, that in addition to the ordinary machinery of getting your plans passed, you would have to notify the local authority of any kind of change whatever taking place in land occupied or owned by you as an individual. That is an extra charge imposed upon ownership and an extra duty imposed upon local authorities. Economy has been very much in the air lately, and we are met again and again by the Government who say that the limits of economy without legislation have been reached. There is talk even of bringing in further legislation limiting the powers and duties of Government in order that economy may be effected. I shall believe that when I see it, and not before. We may at least refrain from imposing fresh and unnecessary duties on local authorities such as this Clause would do. Under the existing laws, you cannot build even a pig sty without getting the plans passed by the local authority. After all, the local authority must be represented on the town planning authority, and if the local authority does not take steps to pass on information which it has received in the ordinary way about the notification of plans, it is not fit to be an authority to town plan or do anything else. The proviso is unnecessary and contains extremely objectionable words which could not work, and ought not to be accepted.

May I reinforce the argument used by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in support of this Amendment; I do not feel strongly whether his Amendment or that of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) is better, but that the purpose of this Amendment is desirable seems to be undeniable. Take the illustration used by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys), when he asked to be assured that there would be some protection for the rights of the property owner whose need to cut down wood arose from the payment of Death Duties. That is perfectly true of a very large number of cases where the property owner wants to develop land in a way which is objectionable to the local authority. He may want to sell it to the owner of a garage to put up undesirable advertisements, or to a jerry-builder for bungaloid growth. The motive that leads to that is a personal motive not adhering to the land, but adhering to the owner.

How can the Minister judge beforehand what the circumstances are? He can judge as to the situation and character of the land economically and industrially for the needs of the locality, but a very large number of the most undesirable developments do not arise at all out of what I may call the local circumstances. They arise out of the individual circumstances which it is impossible for the Minister or anyone else to anticipate. In the case of Death Duties, the Minister cannot tell that a particular landowner is going to die and that his successors will require to raise a large sum of money in a very short time. What can be more essential, therefore, if this Bill is to carry out the purpose which we all know the Minister has at heart as much as any Member of the House, than to have some provision for making sure that the local authority concerned will have reasonable notice and have the opportunity of protesting before a landowner takes some steps that might ruin for ever the value of a particular piece of land for town-planning purposes, or for the purpose of preserving the amenities of a district?

We had many tributes paid in the course of the debate in Standing Committee and in the House to the services of the landowners in the past in preserving the beauties of England. I agree that in many cases landowners have acted in that way, but unfortunately self-interest is a stronger motive in nearly all men than aesthetic interest and, when a landowner is up against some strong economic motive that makes him want to realise money quickly, aesthetic interests are likely to Vanish like smoke, and he sells his land to the highest bidder for any development which may permanently ruin the land for town planning or aesthetic purposes. I entreat the Minister to consider either this Amendment or the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs if he intends to refuse the more substantial Amendment which we have to consider when the discussion on recommittal comes up, for I am sure that he realises the necessity of safeguarding in some way the right of the local authority to know what is going to happen at least three months before the cat jumps.

We cannot let go unchallenged the statement of the hon. Lady that self-interest is the only motive that causes the sale of land. It is nothing more nor less than the grinding level of taxation which is placed upon owners of land by the State, and I can assure the hon. Lady that nine owners out of ten have not the least desire to see their property split up or disfigured by advertisements, bungaloid growths or anything else. But what are they to do? If I can take the hon. Lady with me as far as I think I could with regard to woodlands, and ask her to establish the principle that where an owner is not to be allowed to sell for death duties the local authority or the State can say that compensation shall be paid, I will agree with her, but I think that that principle can be carried too far. It is impossible to restrict too closely the right of an individual to raise money which the State forces him to raise, even if it means the unfortunate result of causing disfigurement of the countryside. If we want to preserve the countryside in its beauty, the first thing to do is to reduce the taxation of the countryside.

There does not seem to be any reason or justification for this Amendment. Local authorities have ample notice of the intentions of owners to develop their land or to erect buildings of any kind. Owners have to submit their plans for the approval of the local authority, and they also make inquiries of the appropriate departments of the authority with regard to drainage, water supply, lighting and matters of that kind, so that local authorities as a rule have ample knowledge of intentions with regard to any development. It may be suggested that the particular department of a local authority that will be charged with the town planning duties may not be fully aware of the activities of the other departments, but the fact that there is no close co-ordination between the various departments of the local authority is no good reason for placing additional burdens, obligations, liabilities, and responsibilities upon particular owners.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) that the reason why land is 3old by many great landlords is not that they want to part with their property, but the grinding effect of heavy taxation to-day. This Bill is inevitable partly because of the breakup of great estates. In the case of great landlords with great traditions, we can safely trust the development of their land to them; but we have to take the world as we find it, and, owing to the effect of heavy taxation, which was caused largely by the War, great estates are broken up, and unfortunately sold to people who have not the same sense of responsibility or the same traditions that their former owners had. I have a vivid memory of an area in Kent which at one time nobody would have thought would have been subject to rapid and sudden development. When I arrived there it was a pleasant rural area with delightful woods many miles from a. railway station. Suddenly, a service of omnibuses ran along the narrow country lane. Some of the woods were cut down for War purposes when the timber shortage was serious and when the demand for pit-props had to be met by the cutting down of woods. One of the most delightful woods in the district was in this way, I will not say wantonly, but inevitably destroyed.

Almost in a night, old railway carriages appeared in the silvern glades, disfiguring the area and turning the country district almost into a slum. There was no warning of the arrival of these old carriages. The local authority knew nothing, and the people in the district looked on in surprise. They arrived at night. I remember on a wet Easter morning seeing that they had arrived without warning. The local authority was not able to grapple with the situation, and these hideous old railway carriages were followed by others. You could not blame the people who bought the sites; they were suffering from the housing shortage. They went there because they could not find any suitable cover but in the meantime the development of that area had been prejudiced. I do not attach importance to the wording of this Amendment, but something of this kind is required if we are to preserve what we treasure more than anything, the natural beauty of our country. This is a practical proposal in order that local authorities may be forewarned. To be forewarned is to be forearmed, and I suggest that the Minister could give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) hoped that he would take with him the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). If, however, the hon. lady took not only the hon. Member but several others with her, she would go a long way outside the Amendment. We are not discussing the unfortunate difficulties of the owners, but whether or not the owners should give three months' notice to the planning authorities of any proposed development. I support the argument which was put forward by my noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington). The Amendment is both unnecessary and unworkable, and, because it is unnecessary, it is undesirable. It is unworkable because nobody would know the exact development of which the unfortunate owner would have to give notice. It is unnecessary because the local authorities already, through their own departments, get information as to any substantial development of an estate. I agree with my Noble Friend that if a local authority is so incompetent that it cannot join the department which receives that notice with its town planning department the sooner it is deprived of town planning powers the better.

I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment, because, as far as I can see, it is quite unworkable. It lays down that the owner or occupier, before permitting any development to take place, or any change of user, must notify the Minister. I fail to see how it is possible for an owner or occupier to judge what change of user or development would justify the Minister in including the land in a scheme. One of the main objects of rather limiting the scope of this Bill, which for the first time deals with built-up areas, is to minimise, as far as possible, the damaging effects to ordinary normal development in towns of the standstill under an interim development order. One of the results of passing this Amendment would be to hinder the ordinary normal development in a built-up area where no regular development was likely to take place on such a scale as would warrant its being included in a town planning scheme.

The development of almost every town has, up to date, taken place more or less on the same lines. A building runs its course, it becomes worn out, the lease expires, and it is wise then to pull it down and replace it with another. How is a man whose lease has run out and who wants to rebuild to judge whether the new building he proposes to erect is one as to which he should give notice to the Minister, on the ground that the land ought to be included in a town planning scheme? If he does give notice he must wait to see whether the land is included, and his development or rebuilding plans are postponed, to the detriment of himself and of the prospective tenant and to the detriment of the trade of the neighbourhood. I sincerely hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment, not only because, as I say, it is unworkable, but because I think a great many people do not realise the difficulties which will arise in the interim period to the ordinary normal development of towns, and it is those difficulties which we want to minimise as far as possible.

I hope the Minister will at any rate accept the principle of this Amendment, and that whether he aecepts it or the one that follows he will at least give us a promise that the principle will in some way be included in the Bill. The arguments to which we have just listened, like most of the arguments used by opponents of the Bill, would have been to some extent justified had we been considering this Bill 30 years ago; but, as has been indicated by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), conditions in regard to the ownership of land have entirely changed, and the character of districts is very rapidly changing. The argument has been put forward that when plans are lodged notice is thereby given to the local authority, and that any local authority whose department with which the plans were lodged was not in touch with the other department responsible for town planning would not be a fit local authority to control town planning.

That is a good argument as far as it goes, but I would point out that the companies who are now exploiting the country, and considering only the profit they can make out of development, have an entirely different outlook from that of the better type of landlord or land owner who used to own these estates. A tract of land coming into the possession of one of these companies might include woods and have a pretty rural outlook. They would go ahead with their scheme, and long before they had lodged their plans they would have destroyed the whole aspect of the place by cutting down the woods and running roads across them —in respect of which they need not put in plans—and by the time the plans were actually lodged the whole appearance of the area would have been destroyed. If, then, after the lodging of the plans, any attempt were made to restrict the development contemplated, the company would plead that they had already been put to very heavy expenditure, and use that as an argument for being allowed to proceed with their scheme. For these reasons and others which have been given I think the Minister would be well advised, in the interest of preserving the amenities of the countryside, to include the principle of this Amendment in the Bill.

This Amendment and the one which follows it have certain differences in form, but they both raise the same question of principle, and I think it will be convenient to deal with them at the same time. I have listened with great interest and a good deal of sympathy to speeches made from both sides. Now that we have decided to limit the areas which can be planned so as exclude what are called static areas I quite recognise the nature of the case put forward by those favouring the Amendment that there should be provision for notice to be given to the planning authorities of proposed development in static areas. At the same time, when we are dealing with restrictions upon the use of property and capital assets in the interests of the community we must be assured, and doubly assured, that the restrictions we are imposing are absolutely essential, and it is from that aspect that I would regard this proposal. I confess that I have not been able to persuade myself that the limitations which this Amendment suggests are essential for the purposes to which they are directed. Indeed, it appears to me that they go a good deal further than is necessary, and that it is a case of burning down the house to roast the pig. Let us see what a very wide restriction this would impose; and we must suppose that this power, if given, is to be widely used. It would amount to nothing less than this—that a very wide extent of land would be placed in a special class, and that the owners and occupiers of all land in that class would be unable to build upon or to develop their land without a new and extensive period of notice to the local authorities, and, what is more, and to this I would draw special attention, they would be unable to make any change in their plans without three months' notice to the local authority.

Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me. I think the provision will not stop anybody from using land. It only provides that, if they are going to do it, they shall first give notice. It puts no prohibition or restriction of any sort or kind upon them.

I accept that correction. It is a fact, as has been very well pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) that practically the necessity for notice amounts to prohibition. You never know what is going to happen. Incidentally, giving notice is not sufficient to prevent a man from going on with his undertaking. There is much in the contention advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton, but I do not think it is necessary for the purposes of town planning. It is very severe, and, however severe it was, if it was necessary, I would have to do it, but I do not think it is necessary for the purpose of town planning. If a planning authority has not included an area in its plan—and development is likely to take place subsequently at less than three months' notice—all you can say is that in that case the town planning authorities have been caught napping. The land is clearly land likely to be developed, and it could be included in the planning of the authorities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me for a moment. Is it not the Minister who is caught napping, and not the town planning authorities? It is the Minister who has to decide.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Minister is to know or how the town planning authorities are to know in advance if somebody is going to die?

The matter is one for the local town planning authorities under the control of the Minister. Either the planning authority, or the complex of authorities that are responsible, are caught napping. As to the objection of the hon. Member opposite, I do not think it is asking too much that people should look forward to the extent of three months in order to know whether land is likely to be developed or not. That seems to be a reasonably practical plan. I think it is a decisive point that there are ample powers already in the Bill to enable an alert complex of planning authorities to deal with the situation which is feared by some hon. Members who wish to put additional powers of this sort into the Bill, which would only serve to put a premium upon the lack of alertness and lethargy of town planning authorities. In those circumstances, the question becomes one of the extension or confinement of the area of planning, and discussion on that could only take place upon the appropriate motion being moved upon the re-committal of the Bill. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member will not regard it as necessary to press the Amendment.

I am not quite certain what the position will be. I apprehend that the matter can only arise on the Report stage, and I understand that the Report stage is only to last two more days. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that there may be time in which it will be possible to discuss it. Judging from the Paper, it looks as though unless the House sits continuously from 2.45 p.m. on Monday until next Wednesday at mid-day it will be quite impossible to reach that stage.

The hon. and learned Member will understand that it is im-

I do not propose to move my Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, to leave out from the word "Minister" to the word "may" in line 19.

This is a further drafting Amendment, necessitated by the inclusion in the Fourth Schedule of what now are regulations. Perhaps I may say also, to save time, that the next Amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend—in line 20, after the word "approval", to insert the words, "to a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme" —is consequential upon this one.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:

"but subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this section."

It seems desirable to make it quite clear that the Minister's power to in-crease the area to which the scheme applies is subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2). This will only apply if Sub-section (2) remains as it is, and it may be that it is already governed by Sub-section (2). I should like an assurance on that point. If not, the Minister, when he has the power to give his approval to a resolution to vary the extent of the land to be included in an area, ought to be subject to the same limitations to which he is subject under Subsection (2).

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Few-bury (Brigadier-General Brown) is right, and that there might be some doubt as to the wording of the Bill if we did not take some such action as he suggests. If it were possible for the Minister, in varying an Order, to include an area which he could not include under the original Order, that would obviously be unreasonable and bad legislation. Accordingly, I propose to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. I trust, however, that he will understand that its drafting is perhaps not perfectly correct, and that it might be necessary in another place to alter the actual drafting of the words.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:

"(7) Where under the last foregoing subsection a local authority or joint committee have power to prepare a scheme for any area they may decide in lieu of proceeding with the preparation of a scheme to adopt, with or without modifications, a scheme for that area or any part thereof proposed by all or any of the owners of land in that area or part thereof. A decision under this Sub-section shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a resolution to adopt a scheme but as from the date of the decision the resolution or resolutions to prepare a scheme or schemes shall, so far as concerns the area or part of an area to which the decision relates, have effect as if the resolution or resolutions had been for the adoption of a scheme.

"(8) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of a resolution to prepare a scheme varying an existing scheme or to prepare a supplementary scheme as defined by this Act."

This Amendment, again, is smaller in substance than it is in length. It is put down to meet a point which was made in Committee, that an authority ought to be able to adopt an owner's scheme, if they think fit, with respect to any land or part of any land as to which they have passed a resolution. Already under the Bill they have power to adopt an owner's scheme before they pass a resolution, and this provision gives them power to do so afterwards. It gives a little elasticity.

When the hon. Gentleman says "they," does he mean the council or the owners? If it is the owners, we could not agree.

The authorities.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "and" in line 17, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"at least once during each of two successive weeks, with an interval between each publication of at least six clear days, in a local newspaper."

The point was raised in Committee as to the period to be allowed for notice between the publications in the local newspapers of the effect of the resolutions. The Amendment provides for an interval of six clear days between each publication. It is purely machinery to implement the undertaking given in Committee.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, to leave out paragraph (i).

This is really only a machinery Amendment and practically drafting. In Committee, after considerable discussion, an arrangement was made as to the way in which notices were to be served on persons affected by schemes, and we adopted the practical solution of adopting the Schedule A Income Tax lists and, as a result, this paragraph becomes redundant, because paragraph (ii) in its amended form will cover all the persons who were formerly covered by paragraph (i).

I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, at the beginning, to insert the words:

"In any case where any person has duly objected to the approval of a scheme by the Minister, and within twenty-one days after the date of the Minister's decision on such objections has intimated to the Minister that the objections to the scheme are not withdrawn, the scheme as proposed to be approved by the Minister shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not become operative unless both Houses by resolution approve the scheme, either without modification or addition, or with modifications or additions, to which both Houses agree, and subject as aforesaid."

The scheme is the Bill is that, first of all, a resolution has to be passed by the local authority, then that a preliminary statement is issued by the local authority of what is proposed to be done, then a draft scheme has to be made, and ultimately the final scheme has to be made and approved. Throughout all these various stages the Minister is the sole person in control and his word is law. I do not object to that so far as the first three stages are concerned, but practically all the built up areas in the country are included, and practically all the rural areas except a very few in a few small portions of the country. The Bill covers the whole of the City of London. Questions of immense importance and of very large value are involved. It is too great a responsibility to put on one man, whoever he may be. The Minister has on the Paper a new first Schedule which carries out, as far as I can see, exactly what he promised to do in Committee. So far as is relevant for my purpose, the Bill provides that the Minister has to approve the scheme, on its merits as it were, and that there shall be power to put into it provisions suspending any Act of Parliament. Under the new First Schedule the Minister has set out that in any scheme involving the suspension of a Statute an affirmative resolution shall be obtained. He has realised the principle which has been very strongly emphasised, that an Act of Parliament passed by the House of Commons should only be repealed by legislation or by an act of the House of Commons itself.

He has further provided in the First Schedule that in all cases the scheme shall be laid upon the Table of the House and then, unless a Resolution is passed rejecting or annulling the scheme, it shall become law. The Amendment raises, therefore, the question of the difference between what is called the affirmative Resolution of the House and the negative Resolution. It is undoubtedly true that the negative Resolution of this House, as our Rules are at present constituted, is futile. A scheme is laid upon the Table of the House which means that a copy is put somewhere in the Library. It has to come on at Eleven o'clock at night. At that late hour a private Member who may be interested has to get a Resolution passed in order to annul the scheme. He has no means of informing the Members of the House of what the question really is however important it may be, and he has no means of getting Members to attend. He is talked out at half-past Eleven o'clock, and the whole thing is practically a farce as far as any protection of members of the public are concerned.

If, on the other hand, the Minister has to obtain an affirmative Resolution he has to get the House to agree to the scheme, and he has all the means at his disposal of securing the attendance of Members and of keeping the House together. The sole question really is to decide whether the matters involved are of sufficient importance that an affirmative Resolution ought to be secured for the protection of the individual. If hon. Members will carry back their minds to the days of Magna Charta they will remember that it was there provided that no man should be deprived of his liberty or dispossessed of his property except according to law.

Clause 47 of the Bill provides that every local authority of 20,000 inhabitants shall within two years set in motion the procedure of the Act and design and bring into operation a town planning scheme under the Act. The time may be extended at the option of the Minister. As I have already pointed out, the Minister is the sole person to decide all those schemes. The matter is decided in his office without hearing it argued. The Bill confers upon the Minister the powers which have hitherto only been granted by this House under private Bill procedure after investigations by Members of the House when all parties have been heard. After the Bill is passed no private Bills will be necessary for any town planning scheme of whatever magnitude it may be, as the procedure will rest entirely upon the provisions contained in the Act. The objector ought to have the right to have his case brought before Parliament if he so desired. I do not suggest that the procedure would be resorted to in a great many cases, but the advantage of such procedure would make the local authority more careful in the preparation and design of the scheme. It would make the Minister and his office more careful. It does not need a lawyer to say that the mere effect of an appeal makes the courts more careful in their action, and thereby the mere provision of the power of appeal makes, in numerous cases, an appeal absolutely unnecessary.

I suggest in my Amendment that an affirmative Resolution should be passed. A scheme would then come before the House, and, unless cause were shown for further investigation, it would be passed by the House as it stood, whereas the usual course which follows an Order under the Electricity or other Acts of Parliament when a prima facie case for further investigation has been made out, is for the case to be sent from the House to a Select Committee at a minimum of expense as far as Party procedure is concerned. I commend the matter to the Minister for further consideration. As a matter of constitutional practice, it is very desirable. I suggest to him and to the House that it would give much greater confidence to the public at large if there was this procedure in reserve to see that the Act was properly administered in the interests of the general public.

In supporting the Amendment, I appreciate that Ministers as a whole always possess a degree of perfection far greater than that of any ordinary private individual, but however great that perfection may be, even Ministers may be fallible. If even in one case out of 100 Ministers came down from their perfection to the common failures of humanity, then indeed some unfortunate objector might not receive justice. I suggest, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has pointed out, that the affirmative Resolution is an easy and simple matter of dealing with this question. It will not mean a great deal of extra work upon Parliament. The whole experiments in regard to Special Orders under the gas and electricity Acts have shown that only upon a very few occasions has the procedure been necessary, but it does and will give a certain degree of public confidence and at; the same time vindicate to some degree also the sovereignty of Parliament over any departmental legislation whatever. So long as objectors can come before Parliament and so long as, under the affirmative Resolution, they are in a position once again to come before a Select Committee of the House to put their case when there is a substantial objection, so long will you have even greater confidence in the work of the Ministry in regard to Acts such the Town and the Country Planning Act. The whole thing boils down to the very marrow limits dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead, and I sincerely ask the Minister, in the interests of the public and of Parliament, to consider favourably the Amendment which has been moved.

This Amendment would certainly provide means of securing or protecting the rights of the individual as against that which the Minister earlier in the debate referred to as the complex of town planning authorities. That complex of town planning authorities is the partnership of the Minister of Health and the local authorities. Against that combination those individual interests are likely to be rather brusquely pushed no one side. In this Clause hon. Members will observe how differently the interests of the individuals are dealt with compared with the interests of one of the parties to the partnership. The Minister has complete and, if I may use the term, arbitrary powers under this Clause to approve of any scheme which the other party to the partnership may submit to him. The local authority will submit a scheme to him and the Minister will pass it or approve it, with or without modifications. Let hon. Members observe what follows. The Minister may approve it with modifications, but before he makes any modifications it is provided that he shall inform the local authority, the other partner, but no information whatever with regard to his modifications is to be given to the individual owners concerned. They are treated with very scant courtesy and little consideration.

The Clause further provides that the Minister shall cause a local inquiry to be held into the matter if the local authority requests him to do so. That is, if the other partnership to the complex of town planning authorities so requests him. It does not matter what request may come from the individual, the owners. To them is turned a deaf ear. They have no power of appeal. They have no rights. They receive no information. They cannot request a public inquiry or anything of the kind. That is left entirely to the local authority. Therefore, the dice is loaded very heavily against the individual landowner and in favour of the complex of planning authorities between the Minister of Health and the local authorities. The only possibility of securing a measure of justice to the individual and the owner is to secure a very much greater degree of publicity than is at present provided for. These hole and corner methods are most undesirable and will have unfortunate reflex actions in due course. The best that could possibly be done in the public interest would be to secure the fullest measure of publicity and the fullest opportunity for the representations of the individuals to be considered. By such means as the Amendment proposes some measure of that kind could be adopted.

I confess to a twinge of disappointment that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has found it necessary to move this Amendment on the Report stage, because this matter was very fully discussed in Committee and the proposals that were then made by me were, I think, considered by nearly all the members of the Committee fully to meet the criticisms that were made. My hon. and learned Friend has, however, great historic knowledge and I know he feels very deeply on these matters. Therefore, he adheres to his individual opinion. The Amendment proposes that every scheme to which objection is taken—we know that in any scheme one always find objectors—shall be submitted to the procedure of an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons. That would mean practically the introduction of a special legislative, step.

If notice is given.

It would mean the adoption of a special legislative step. I am fully in agreement with the arguments advanced as to the necessity for obtaining the right of appeal and publicity for the aggrieved person, the objector, but that must be done without imposing upon the procedure and the time of the House of Commons an unnecessary burden. The effect of the Amendment could only be to encumber the procedure of the House of Commons with a large call upon its time which is not neecssary for the purpose which the hon. and learned Member has in view. What is my counter proposal, which I think commended itself to the general opinion of the Committee upstairs? It is that there is one set of conditions under which you ought to have an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons, and that is where you are in any way affecting existing legislation. That which owes its authority to the House of Commons should only be affected by the authority of the House of Commons, and in recognition of that principle I have provided for an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons where there is a question affecting the existing statutory law. Where there is no such question I propose to revert to the annulment procedure. The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) misconceives the situation. By the annulment procedure an opportunity is given to the objector to make his grievance known to the House of Commons, the single condition being that he thinks it worth while to come down to the House and make it known. That gives him ample opportunity and it is the businesslike way of dealing with the situation.

The annulment procedure under which an objector can, by having a Resolution moved, hold up a scheme is most useful. There was an annulment procedure in the old days, but it has slipped out of Acts of Parliament. In recognition of the strength of the case that has been made I am proposing to restore that procedure in an Act of Parliament. Let me point out that the annulment procedure is of a good deal more practical use at the present time than it was in the old days when it was abandoned, in the first place because, for good or for ill, people are so much better acquainted with the procedure, and in the second place there is a much higher degree of organisation of the interests concerned. By making use of the services of those organisations the individual objector in a practical way can use the annulment procedure to make good his rights and obtain a hearing for his case. For these reasons I hope the House will agree to what was the general opinion of the Committee and will not support the Amendment.

I regret the reply of the Minister of Health, which does not come as a great surprise, and I think the House would be well advised to consider carefully before adopting the course which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We desire to increase a concession which was given by the Minister in Committee. We divided on the question then, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself less than justice in saying that this procedure recommended itself to the majority of the Committee because many hon. Members who are not well versed in the procedure of Parliament were swayed by the ingenuous and conciliatory manner in which he made the concession; which in our submission amounts to very little. There are two points of substance in connection with this Amendment. The first, and the more important, is whether it is advisable to proceed by affirmative or negative Resolution. The Minister of Health says that the negative procedure is becoming more and more useful and effective, but the fact remains that it is extremely difficult to get anything done under that procedure.

The hon. Member has not only to make himself acquainted with all the facts of the case and the circumstances of the locality and the intricate procedure involved, but he has also to get and keep a House after eleven o'clock, and then press his arguments on the Government in this sure and certain knowledge that when the Division bell rings the Government Whips will say the Government are Ayes or Noes and his protest will be entirely ineffective. Under the affirmative Resolution procedure it is true that he may not get very much farther, but it is for the Government to find time for the Resolution and to keep a House. We feel that the onus of opposing these schemes should not be upon the individual and that if Parliamentary sanction is to be given it should be given by the Government.

The second point of substance is this. Under the procedure we propose the question of Parliamentary sanction will only come up in the case of opposed schemes. The Minister of Health when he granted the concession made a great point of the fact that not only opposed schemes but all schemes would come before Parliament. That is directly contrary to our wishes. We feel strongly that it is eminently desirable to put a premium on agreed schemes, that is to say, that we do

I beg to move, in page 11, line 19, after the word "to", to insert the words:

"the laying of schemes before Parliament."

This Amendment prepares the way for the new Schedule which the Minister proposes to move in lieu of Schedule I. The issue concerned is the laying of schemes before Parliament in particular cases, and the cases referred to are those where Acts are suspended.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, to leave out the words "or revoked", and to insert instead thereof the words:

"otherwise than by way of extension of the area to which the scheme applies, or may be revoked."

This is an Amendment whereby it is proposed to make clear that a varying scheme cannot extend the area of the scheme which it varies.

Are we to understand that the effect of the Amendment is to make it impossible to vary by a subsequent scheme the area included in a scheme? I do not think that that can really be the intention, for that would be a very serious matter indeed.

I have been misunderstood. The point is that the principle has been introduced into the Bill that the preparation of a supplementary scheme, that is a scheme for any land comprised in the area of a regional scheme, does not give rise to this procedure.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, to leave out the word "and," and to insert "(4)".

I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, to leave out the words "The taking effect of the," and to insert instead thereof the word "A."

This is consequential on the procedure we have just taken.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, after the word "conditions," to insert the words:

"(not being conditions requiring any monetary payment to be made)".

We have now come to the interim development orders. Sub-section (3) of the Clause says:

Where an application for permission to develop land is made to the specified authority in manner provided by the order, the authority may, subject to the terms of the order, grant the application unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think proper to impose.

I seek to insert the words "(not being conditions requiring any monetary payment to be made)."

This matter was discussed shortly in Standing Committee. There is no doubt that in the case of interim orders local authorities are already charging fees to cover the expenses to which they are put. On the Bill of 1931 the late Captain Henderson raised this question and the then Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) said that he thought a real point had been raised, though he was not clear that words proposed by Captain Henderson carried out the purpose intended. He promised that if that Amendment were withdrawn a proviso would be in- serted in the Bill on the Report stage. On Report there was no proviso inserted. On the present Bill I raised the matter again in Committee, and the learned Attorney-General said he would look into it. He said that he did not know whether it would be necessary to insert the words I had proposed, but he assured me that if words were necessary to make it plainer that there was no power to extract a charge, the proper words would be inserted. I am moving this Amendment in order to get the fulfilment of that promise. I hope that my luck will continue. My first Amendment was accepted, and this, I hope, will be accepted too.

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. and gallant Friend is right in saying that I promised to look into this matter, and I am glad to find that, in Committee, I expressed doubt as to whether the insertion of these words would be necessary, because on further examination my doubt has been confirmed. It is my emphatic opinion now that it is not necessary to insert these words, not because I do not agree with the object of my hon. and gallant Friend, but because the insertion of the words would, I am certain, add nothing to the Clause as it stands. Further, the insertion of these words in this place would throw doubt upon the effect of the absence of similar words from similar sections of other Acts. I hope that that is a sufficient reason against any insistence upon the Amendment.

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that an authority ought not to be empowered to exact money payments as one of the conditions which it may impose, but there are plenty of provisions in Acts of Parliament which require a local authority, for instance, to examine proposals submitted to them, and it has been held by the House of Lords in the clearest possible way that a public body charged with the performance of a duty has no right to exact, either by way of tax or by penalty or by reimbursement of costs, any sum of money as a condition of performing their statutory duty. If we put into this Clause the words proposed by the Amendment that fact would be used as an argument in the interpretation of other Acts of Parliament, and it would be pointed out that the words inserted in this Measure were not to be found in those other Acts. I am satisfied that it will not be possible for an authority to exact money payments as one of their conditions, and, while I am in agreement with the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend, I am not prepared to insert these words.

In view of the Attorney-General's statement that a public authority is not entitled to exact fees in these eases, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move in page 13, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that—

(a) an application for permission to erect a new building on the site of an existing building, or on the site of a building which was standing within two years before the date on which a resolution takes effect, if made before or within two years after the destruction or demolition of that previous building, or within twelve months after the date on which the resolution takes effect, whichever period last expires, shall not be refused and conditions shall not be imposed, if the effect of the refusal or imposition of conditions would be to render it impossible for the applicant to erect a building having a cubic content above the level of the ground as great as that of the previous building or, in the case of a previous building used for business or industry, to erect a building having as great a cubic content above the level of the ground and as great a superficial area on the ground floor as those of the previous building, except where either—

(i) the new building would not conform with a provision proposed to be inserted in the scheme for fixing in relation to any street or proposed street a line beyond which no building in that street or proposed street may project; or

(ii) it is proposed to include the site of the new building or part thereof in an area to be reserved by the scheme for a purpose the carrying out of which in the future would necessitate the removal or the alteration of the new building;

(b) an application for permission to use any building which is erected in substitution for an existing building, or other such previous building as aforesaid, and is commenced within two years after the destruction or demolition of the previous building, for any purpose of the same or similar character as that for which the previous building was last used before its destruction or demolition shall not be refused unless such a use would be seriously detrimental to the neighbourhood."

2.0 p.m.

This Amendment is moved in order to deal at this stage with a suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) during the Committee stage in the manner in which I then proposed to deal with it. This relates to the interim period between the resolution and the scheme. The owner of an existing building secures under the Bill the right to replace his existing building with another building of the same size and sort or to receive compensation if he is denied that right. The wider question is not, however, involved in this Amendment. What is desired is to make it quite clear that the right so enjoyed by the owner of the existing building, during the interim period between the resolution being passed that there should be a scheme, and the scheme being passed which fulfils the resolution, includes both an existing building and a building which was standing within two years before the material date. It is considered fair to include a case in which there has been a building there quite lately.

The Amendment gives, with two exceptions, the right to erect a building of at. least equal size to be used for the same purpose as the former building or a similar purpose. As to the exceptions, it is desired to meet cases where the land has to be kept free from building if the purposes of the scheme are to be fulfilled, or where the purposes of the scheme would not be fulfilled if a fresh building were erected. The two exceptions are intended, first, to prevent a building being brought beyond the building line proposed, and, secondly, to prevent the erection of a new building on land which is to be reserved for an open space under the scheme. An owner injuriously affected, in the case of either of these two exceptions, by having observed the proposed conditions, will be able to gain a reasonable compensation when the scheme comes into operation. I think the Amendment fulfils the purpose which was practically agreed upon in Committee.

It is a little difficult to follow the Amendment on the Paper but I would ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the form of words proposed here might not possibly let in cases of applications not made under this section—for instance where a building line has been laid down and an application is made for permission to erect a building, not specifically under this Section but under the ordinary building provisions. The words here are very wide:

"An application for permisson to erect a new building.… shall not be refused."

Unless some limiting words are inserted, that provision might lead hereafter to disputes as to whether any application of the kind can be refused. Take the case of a corner site where a building has been pulled down and a new building line is laid down. It would be unfortunate if, under the ordinary building line regulations, it were to be held that an application made in pursuance of this Clause could not be refused. The Minister might consider whether he ought not to limit this to applications "made hereunder" or put in some words of that sort.

I speak with diffidence upon what is a purely legal question, but I imagine that very probably the Clause as it stands with the proviso will secure the point which the hon. and learned Member has in mind. I certainly will see that attention is paid to this matter and make sure that the danger which he apprehends is avoided.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 20, after the word "application," to insert the words:

"after appeal to the Minister as is hereinafter provided."

This Amendment is preliminary to a further Amendment, in line 23, to leave out the words "shows to their satisfaction," and insert instead thereof the word "proves." The original word in the Bill was "proves," and the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), I think it was, moved an Amendment to insert the words, "shows to their satisfaction," which was accepted by the Minister very quickly, before, I think, either he or the Members of the Committee realised what had been done. The effect of the Clause as it now stands, with those words in, is to leave the person whose ground has been damaged as the deciding authority as to whether or not damage has been done, and I do not think that is at all desirable.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It provides that there shall be no right to compensation on the refusal of an application unless the person making the application first makes an appeal to the Minister of Health under Sub-section (5). As the Clause now stands, he would be entitled to such compensation as he shows to the satisfaction of the local authority that he is likely to suffer, even without first appealing to the Minister.

The moving of this Amendment leaves me in some little doubt as to whether the situation is quite clear to the. House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) will remember that in Committee I explained the circumstances under which I was about to move the Amendment which is now the following Amendment to this, namely, to omit the words:

"shall be liable in payment of any damage"

and to substitute for them the words:

"may, if they think fit, make a contribution towards any damage or expense."

That was part of a recasting of these provisions as to interim compensation, on which there was a certain measure of accommodation and understanding at the time. If that Amendment of mine is accepted, it will be clear that the provision here for an appeal to the Minister would really not be appropriate, because an appeal would not be appropriate with regard to a voluntary power to make a contribution. On the other hand, I rather gather, from what my hon. and learned Friend now says in explanation of his Amendment, that what he really values in the matter is the substitution of the words "shows to their satisfaction" by the word "proves". If that is his specific purpose, while I do not think there is any very great substance in that substitution, I should be prepared to meet him in that respect. But the present Amendment, in view of the Amendment that I am about to propose, would not really be relevant or appropriate, and I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend should withdraw the present Amendment on my undertaking to give favourable consideration to his subsequent Amendment.

If I may say a word with permission, I should not like any confusion to arise, but I understood the Minister—

I must remind the hon. and learned Member that we are not in Committee. I thought he rose merely to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

I said that I rose with permission, your permission and that of the House, in order to prevent any confusion in this matter. I really want that there should be a right to this damage if it is proved, and not that the local authority should be put in the position, in which no local authority ought to be put, of having to make an eleemosynary gift. I do not think that ought to be in an Act of Parliament. Either the applicant ought to have the right to damage or he ought not.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, to leave out the words:

"shall be liable in payment of any damage,"

and to insert instead thereof the words:

"may, if they think fit, make a contribution towards any damage or expense."

This Amendment, if carried, will enable us to clear up the matter. It is important that the House should understand the situation exactly, as there is apparently some doubt in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend opposite. In Committee, an Amendment to this Clause was passed which had the effect of saying that where any detriment had been suffered by the owner owing to the control during the interim period, the authority was to be liable for the payment of damages for that detriment at the time. That is the whole point. I explained to the Committee that it was impossible in practical affairs to assess the damage at the time, or even to know whether there was any legal damage such as ought to be compensated at the time, that those things could not be known until the scheme was actually adopted. Nevertheless the Amendment was carried, and it left the Bill, in my view, unworkable.

That led to discussions. The result of those discussions was that we found a way out which, I think I am not going too far in saying, was acceptable to those who moved the Amendment to Sub-section (4). The way out—and it will appeal to any man of common sense—was to recognise that it was impossible to assess and pay the damage at the time of the interim development, but to recognise also that if any detriment had been suffered, the sufferer ought not to lose simply because there was a lapse of time before his rights could be ascertained. That was recognised, and so this expedient, which was the obvious thing to do, was adopted of inserting in the Bill a provision that when the scheme was finally adopted, all rights to compensation which had accrued during the interim period should be considered, although they could not be assessed at the time.

That was the solution which, I believe, commended itself to those who had been labouring with me to find a way out of the difficulty. I, therefore, inserted Subsection (2) of Clause 18, which was the beginning of the fulfilment of my undertaking. The effect of Clause 18 (2) is that when a man claims compensation under the scheme, he can also claim additional compensation for any injurious affection suffered by interim decisions, and Sub-section (6) of Clause 6 provides for the case where the scheme is not proceeded with. It may be said, "It is all very well to give compensation at the time when the scheme is completed, but if a scheme is never completed, he may be done in," and Sub-section (6) provides that if a scheme is not completed, nevertheless he is to receive compensation for the damage actually accrued. That makes a complete, alternative method of dealing with the matter in this Bill, and the acceptance of that alternative method involves the elimination of the original shot at dealing with the matter, in view of our having dealt with the interim rights of compensation by the alternative I have described under Clauses 18 (2) and 6 (6). In view of the fact that I have dealt with the matter in that way, it may be possible very much to smooth the wheels of town planning by giving to the local authority this voluntary power to anticipate compensation, because when the compensation comes to be paid, any voluntary contribution will be taken into account, and set off against the final compensation. I ask the assistance of the House on the Report stage to carry out the scheme of compensation in the terms which, I think, substantially meet the case.

The explanation of the Minister entirely removes any doubts I had about this Clause, except that I should like to see the word "proves" substituted for the words "shows to their satisfaction."

I think that we all listened to what the Minister said with very great interest. In Committee I took, possibly, a less strong line on the question of compensation than some hon. Members, because I have always recognised that all payments of compensation are not justifiable, and it would not be fair to put local authorities, particularly in rural districts, in the position of having to pay compensation which was not justifiable. Therefore, I think it is possible, perhaps, to take out the absolute right to compensation during the interim period. But I rose particularly to enter a caveat. I have always taken the line that where a local authority under an interim development order has compelled an individual to spend money before the scheme may be finally aproved, it may be 20 years ahead, then that individual should have the right to compensation for the amount of money that he has been ordered to spend by the local authority. I say that because I hope that, during the passage of this Bill on Report or in another place, something may be done in order to meet that point.

It is said that it is not possible to assess compensation during an interim period, because the scheme may be varied in its passage through its various stages, but when we started our proceedings we passed a Clause to enable betterment to be set off against compensation. Betterment must be paid within 12 months, and as you are allowed to set compensation against it, surely it must be possible to assess compensation. That seems to me a point very worthy of consideration, and I was very interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman—I am not a lawyer—agreed with the assertion that it is not possible to assess interim compensation.