May I ask you, Sir, if I may have a correction made in the OFFICIAL REPORT? A supplementary question put yesterday on Question No. 16 by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) was attributed to me. It rather gives the impression that I did not know what the original Question was.

That will be corrected automatically.

I beg to move, in page 33, line 2, to leave out from "business" to "in", in line 3, and to insert "all expenses reasonably incurred by him."

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed, at the same time, the two following Amendments in my name—in page 33, line 4, to leave out "may" and insert "shall" and in line 5, to leave out from "such" to "he" in line 6, and to insert "compensation for the loss, if any, which"—because they all deal with the same subject. The main object is to make it incumbent upon a local authority to give the expenses of removal in every case to the person who is compulsorily removed. Where we are compelling a man to leave a house, there might be some excuse for not paying him his expenses in some cases if we were not at the same time removing from him the benefit of the Rent Restriction Act, but when we are removing the protection we must at the same time, it seems to me, see to it that in every case the expenses are paid. As the Bill stands, it is left entirely to arrangements made at the sweet will of the local authority. Having regard to the very large number of small people who will be affected, I do not think the Committee ought to allow the Clause to be left in its present form. It is true that, when a landlord gives a tenant notice to quit, the tenant pays the expenses, but, when we are compelling him to quit when no landlord, because of the operation of the Rent Restriction Act, could give him notice to quit, are we not bound in every case to see that his reasonable expenses are paid? May I read the Clause as it would be, if these Amendments were made:

"A local planning or highway authority or a Minister may pay to any person who; in the carrying out of redevelopment on land which has been acquired or appropriated by the authority or Minister for the purposes of or under this Part of this Act, is displaced from a building in which he is residing or carrying on business, all expenses reasonably incurred by him in removing, and to a person carrying on any business in a building from which he is so displaced they shall pay also compensation for the loss, if any, which he will sustain by reason of the disturbance to his business consequent on his having to quit the building and in estimating that loss they shall have regard to the period for which the premises Occupied by him might reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of his business and the availability of other premises suitable for that purpose."

The Clause refers not only to the residential small man but also to all small traders and shopkeepers. The Committee, which has a natural concern for that type of small person, will naturally want to insist that the Government, in giving power to the local authorities, will see that they are reimbursed reasonably for any expense or any disturbance of their business brought about as the result of a planning scheme.

I support the Amendment. I do not think it is right that anyone who is displaced from his home or his business premises should be left entirely to the tender mercies of the local authority, and that, as far as I can judge, is exactly what is done under this Clause. I object to the Clause because, in the first place, it seems to me to be purely permissive. Also the local authority is left the sole judge of the reasonable allowance to be made for the expenses of removal, and for loss incurred by the disturbance caused. From what I know of local authorities they are not likely to be over-generous. This type of disturbance is quite out of the ordinary. It has no connection whatever with what happens at the end of a lease. In that case, a person in possession of a house or shop has certain knowledge that he may have to clear out at the end of the lease, and he is prepared to meet that contingency, but here, where a lease may have some years to run, he may be turned out at very short notice and he will have no chance to make any preparation whatever. He is being displaced in the public interest.

11.15 a.m.

That being so, and if there is such a thing as justice, the public ought to pay the fair cost of his removal and a fair sum for any loss that he has suffered as a result of his business being disturbed. It is clear from the Debate which took place last night, that a large number of shopkeepers might lose their entire goodwill, and it should not be left to the local authority to decide what is to be paid in that connection. It is something that should be calculated in accordance with strict accounting principles and the custom of the trade. Reference was made yesterday to the benefits which compensation would give to a person displaced from his business, but if this Clause stands as it is at present, it will not be compensation but rather a mockery. I believe that the Committee desire to deal fairly with all these people, and in those circumstances I would beg my right hon. Friend, either to accept the Amendment, or to see that there are inserted in the Bill words which will ensure, beyond all reasonable doubt, that those who are displaced will receive, as of right, just compensation and shall not be left to the tender mercies of the local authorities.

I am a little surprised at the Amendment. I have never thought of either the mover or the supporter of it as champions of the tenant against the landlord. I feel that it is only because the landlord in this case happens to be the local authority. All I rise to do is to ask them, if occasion should arise in the future, to seek similar protection for tenants against private landlords.

May I ask the hon. Member whether he is speaking in support of the Amendment or against it?

It seems to me to be on the whole a fairly harmless and reasonable Amendment, and I have no objection to it.

I am glad to hear the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) express the view that this is a fair and reasonable Amendment, and I hope that the same opinion is held by my right hon. Friend. It seems to me that the principle in the Amendment must appeal to his sense of justice. The people who are affected by the Amendment are, for the most part, small people living in small houses, or carrying on small businesses, and I fail to see how we can possibly excuse any action which will make these people suffer financially in order to make way for some planning scheme. The Amendment will not hold up planning, but it will give justice to the man who is displaced by a development plan. It would be only fair to treat the owners of small residences and shops as fairly as it is proposed to treat those interested in corpses, because we agreed yesterday that anybody who, as a result of a development scheme, has to have a corpse transferred to another burial ground, shall have his expenses paid. I therefore ask for equal justice as between the quick and the dead.

This provision is not as strong as I should like it to be, because its operation is permissive and not compulsory on local authorities.

Among the other Amendments which we are discussing with this one, there is an Amendment to make it compulsory.

I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. The Committee ought to indicate to the local authorities and the Minister the lines on which they should proceed. It is not enough to say that an allowance towards expenses should be granted. The implication of that seems to be that in the normal case they would not grant full expenses but only some part. The Amendment makes it clear that where an allowance is to be granted, it is to cover the whole of those inevitable and unavoidable expenses which people have had put upon them, solely as a result of the public policy of the community. Where the public policy affects an individual adversely, he should not be made to suffer but should be properly compensated.

I wish to support the Amendment, largely because the wording of the Bill puts an unfair burden on the local authority. It puts them in a position of having to discriminate in a way that might be embarrassing. Not only that, but there could be two contiguous local authorities taking different views of what constitutes a reasonable allowance. It was clear from the Debate last evening that, on this side of the Committee, there were wide differences of view on the hardship involved in being turned out of business premises. My Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) took it very lightly, as if there were nothing in it. I think, from practical experience, that it is a severe hardship when a man has his place of business compulsorily closed, and is told to go elsewhere. To leave that to the local authorities will put them in an invidious position. In 99 cases out of 100, local administration is carried on without reference to party politics, but there have been some notorious and conspicuous cases of unpleasant dealings where a large financial power of discrimination has been given to a local authority. It is better for the Committee to say whether we mean that this is to be a chance thing, or whether it should be perfectly clear that everybody concerned should get proper reasonable expenses on a universal scale all over the country. That is what the Amendment means.

Perhaps it would be of assistance to the Committee if I were to say a few words about this matter, because this is one of those things which has to be looked at twice, before one is swept away by meritorious sentiment. This is a permissive power as it stands in the Clause, because the whole question of compensation for disturbance of an interest in land is covered by the Lands Clauses Act. That is to say, if a man has an interest of any sort in land and the public buys it, he is entitled under the Lands Clauses Act to the scale of compensation there laid down. The rights as between the owner of the interest is being disturbed and the acquiring authority are all settled by Parliament. When we come to the weekly tenant, which is really the class of case covered by this Clause, the position is as follows. If the property is acquired by the public authority, that authority becomes the Owner of the property. If the owner were a private person, who would have to give proper notice to the tenant—assuming the Rent Restriction Acts did not apply—the tenant would have to go. The public authority would be in the position of having acquired the land, and these weekly tenants, not having an interest in land as defined by the Lands Clauses Act, have no claim at all to compensation. If, in fact, a local authority were to pay the costs of removal, they would be surcharged with an illegal expenditure from the public funds. With this permissive Clause, the local authority in possession of the land deciding to turn out the Weekly tenants may, for the sake of avoiding hardship, pay the cost of removal. On the other hand, the local authority can let them stay there as long as is necessary. This Clause would make the payment of those expenses a legal expenditure from the public funds, for which the authority would not be surcharged.

I ask my hon. Friends not to disturb the well-settled code of compensation in these matters. These legal rights for compensation have been established for over 100 years and they are well-known. To disturb them would be to create repercussions far wider than are immediately apparent. Everybody in the Committee shares the sympathy that has been expressed for the weekly tenant and I think everyone would like to see him treated fairly. All I can say is that I will consider in the interval what can be done. I will look into the practice that has grown up. My impression is that the local authority acts very fairly—

The slogan of hon. Members opposite is "Do not trust the local authorities."

—towards people when they do turn them out. If anything can be done by way of administrative action, to see that proper consideration is given to cases of hardship, it will be done. I will undertake that inquiry. I ask my hon. Friends not to confound what is an interest in land with what is not, and not to disturb a code of compensation which has grown up in a very just series of enactments over the last 100 years.

Do I understand that all other cases, apart from weekly tenants, are covered by the Lands Clauses Act? I think the Committee has got a wrong impression from the words

"they shall have regard to the period for which the premises… might reasonably have been expected to be available."

One comes to the conclusion that it refers to tenancies longer than weekly. I would like to be assured by the Minister that all other cases are covered, for expenses of removal and injury to business under the Lands Clauses Act.

I can answer that point quite shortly. It does not depend upon the actual length of the tenancy but upon the interest which the acquiring authority, in this case the local authority, chooses to acquire. If, for instance, someone has a seven years' lease, then the acquiring authority, be it as here the local authority, or a railway company, or whatever the body, if compulsory purchase is made, would presumably want to acquire that interest, and would serve a notice to treat. The code which covers the cost of disturbance would then apply. If it chooses not to acquire that interest, and is content that the tenant—weekly, monthly, or longer—should remain, the acquiring authority would then merely have the ordinary legal rights of giving notice, and the cost of disturbance, as and when notice was given, would apply.

I am very glad to have had those words from my right hon. and learned Friend. I did not think the necessity for compensation would occur on that basis. I took the trouble to inquire from several estate agents before I came here, and I am assured that more than 90 per cent. of tenancies are weekly. It would be grossly unfair for the acquiring local authority, in the case of a weekly shop tenancy, to say that the tenant had only three months to go, so that it had no compensation value whatever. Many tenants would regard themselves as likely to be in possession for 21 years, because these leases are renewed.

It did not seem to me that the Minister really dealt with the point of the Amendment. It is not a question here of extending local authorities' powers or of surcharging them, so far as I can see. That position is not touched by the Amendment, the only point of which is to provide that, if a person is caused to remove from one place to another, it shall not be left to the discretion of the local authority whether his removal expenses are paid or not. I should have thought this Amendment would have had the support of hon. Members opposite because it may well be, under the Clause as now drawn, that a particular local authority would refuse to pay one man expenses for removal but would pay the whole of the expenses in the case of his next door neighbour. The man who was not paid would feel a gross sense of injustice and he might, if it was a Socialist local authority, feel that he had been victimised because of his political convictions. The same might apply as between a Conservative local authority and a man who is a Socialist—although the local authority might have been acting in perfect fairness and doing the best it could. It seems inevitable, if the Clause is left in its present form, that a lot of people affected by it will feel that they have been victimised, for one cause or another.

All that the Amendment seeks to do is to provide that where a tenant has had to incur expenses in removal from his house, of which he may be the tenant or the owner, all reasonable expenses so incurred shall be paid by the local authority. I should have thought that that proposal would have been welcomed by everyone as only fair. My right hon. Friend referred to weekly tenants as subject to the Rent Restriction Acts. They have a great deal of security. One of the consequences of removal can be that they have to go into houses at higher rents, which are not subject to those Acts, and incur considerable expenses in order to move from a house in which they might have lived for many years, because of the action—I am not saying that it is not a very proper action—of the local authority. The Minister should reconsider this matter most carefully from this point of view. I am afraid I did not fully appreciate the application of his observations about the effect of the law of compensation for disturbance. The Clause, as it now stands, makes provision for paying compensation for disturbance in respect of business premises, but, again, it is a matter of discretion and not a matter of right. We should make quite sure that the matter is transferred from the realm of discretion to the realm of right, and that anyone, whatever his business, be it small or large, who has incurred expenses in transferring, shall be entitled to all the expenses which he has reasonably incurred. That seems to me to do justice to all concerned and I hope that the Government, after reconsideration, will accept the Amendment.

Neither the learned Attorney-General nor the Minister made any reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act, which I think has some bearing on this. It is about 10 years since we passed that Act for the purpose of protecting shopkeepers whose lease had run out and who had created a goodwill which made it important to them that they should continue business at the same premises. Without the Act the landlord had a whip hand over the shopkeeper. We sought to protect such a shopkeeper by the Landlord and Tenant Act, which I think is a very good and fair Measure. No reference has been made to the relation of that Act to this Clause. There is a further point about the mysterious words "may" and "shall." There are two Amendments down about "may" and "shall." I know, in the ordinary way, "may" has the operative effect of "shall," because what an Act of Parliament does is to enable someone to do something he was not able to do before, and it also casts upon him the obligation of doing it. But there are times when "shall" is necessary instead of "may,' and I think it is necessary in this case. If hon. Members look at page 33, line 5, they will see the words "such reasonable allowance as they think fit." I do not think you can go to court and have an examination of the state of mind of the local council. These words give them a discretion so wide, that they can claim that what they think fit is nothing, and that cannot be challenged in court. I think we should go further than the words of the Clause as they now stand because a biased local authority—and they are not all perfect, as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would agree, because no doubt an authority with a Conservative majority would be regarded by him as a biased body—

I want to know what the hon. Member and the others are after. Does he say that the local authority cannot be trusted to deal properly with those who are moved? Is he arguing that the private landlord who dispossesses such shopkeepers, in order to let his property to the big multiple firms, should give compensation to the shopkeepers?

This has nothing to do with multiple firms. The trouble with the hon. Member is that he will not read the Clause before he makes his speech.

I have read it.

The hon. Member has not understood it.

I do not trust the hon. Member.

I do not ask the hon. Member to trust me. I am only asking him to read. It seems to me that any local authority can, if they wish, and if it is to their advantage, say they do not think any allowance is reasonable. Here is a case in which we are seeking to protect not landlords but tenants. We think the tenants ought to be treated properly.

By the landlord?

Certainly, by the landlord who bought the property, that is to say, the local authority. When the local authority become the landlord they should treat these people fairly. There are provisions for fair treatment but they are so permissive that any local authority which wishes to get out of its obligations can do so. The tenant will have no right to sue the local authority for this "reasonable allowance" because the local authority can say "We do not think there is a case for an allowance." It is like the "genuinely seeking work" provision. You have to examine the mind of the authority concerned.

I wonder whether the Members who have spoken in support of this Amendment have tried to understand the practice that obtains among local authorities when they have to dispossess an unfortunate local shopkeeper. I am not a lawyer, but what happens in relation to shopkeepers on a town council? In Sutton and Cheam, the next parish to the constituency which the hon. Member represents, tens of thousands of pounds have been paid out, not to the landed aristocracy who own the shops, but because of the harm done to the actual trade, that is to the shopkeeper. For example, I remember in connection with a town planning scheme or road development scheme, off the High Street in Sutton, a shopkeeper had a piece of land in front of his shop where he displayed hardware, buckets and odds and ends. This occupied probably 2 ft. of the pavement, but the shopkeeper said "That is my property, whatever use you make of the land. It is my pavement." The corporation had to pay in compensation the equivalent of £150,000 an acre to get that 2 ft. of land. There is no question that was compensation for harm done to that particular business.

What the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and the others who support him are trying to argue is the principle they would not themselves apply because of the ruthlessness of private enterprise. Do Boots, if they exterminate a chemist in a village or town, pay over enormous sums of compensation? It is not done under the capitalist order. [Interruption.] Salmon and Gluckstein if you like. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Co-operative.") Or the Co-operative, because the Co-operative Society must compete with the rest of the social order. If Nature is "red in tooth and claw," do not complain if we beat you at the game. I wonder whether hon. Members are sincere in wishing to apply this principle today, or whether it is only propaganda for the "Daily Express"?

The hon. Member is not entitled to reflect on the sincerity of other hon. Members.

The sincerity may be there all right, but the other intentions are well reproduced by the "Daily Express" as propaganda.

On a point of Order. Will the hon. Member withdraw what he said?

I indicated to the hon. Member that it was not in Order for him to make reflections on other hon. Members and I think he would be well advised to withdraw.

If anyone feels injured at the suggestion that they are insincere I withdraw without any reservation whatever, but the intentions are, undoubtedly, reproduced in a manner entirely different from those which have been expressed in this Committee. I am arguing, in regard to local authorities, that if every Member who has spoken will go to his town clerk he will learn that under the code of law as it now stands, local authorities treat the small shopkeepers where they are dispossessed, or are caused to be removed through any circumstances whatever, far more reasonably and equitably than they could expect to be treated by their friends of big business, who come along with their multiple shops. This elimination process is something that has to be faced. If we are to make Parliament responsible for eliminating the small shopkeepers, I can see us paying out, in the years that lie ahead after the war, tens of thousands, indeed millions of pounds.

Does the hon. Member want the small shopkeeper eliminated or not?

Being an old grocer myself, and recognising that the small shopkeeper is being bamboozled by the Tory element in this Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]Yes, indeed, bamboozled—I maintain that it is far better to be honest with the small shopkeeper, and to say, "If you want to compete with private enterprise and the co-ops, you have to be efficient first." If a small shopkeeper wants to exist, he must be efficient; he must deliver the goods; and I am sure it will not be argued that they are all efficient, because they are not. But this Amendment will impose on local authorities a perpetuation of something which will be a menace to the small shopkeeper, a menace to the local authorities, and a menace to the existing code, which undoubtedly guarantees people compensation to-day if they are dispossessed. I ask the Committee, therefore, to consider all its implications; not merely the sentiment which has been expressed here, but the honest approach to what is involved.

I ask the Committee to allow us to get on with this matter. It is difficult, but not so difficult as it looks. The rights of landlords and tenants, in relation to each other, are settled by the law. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), whether the Landlord and Tenant Act applies, I would say that it applies to the local authority just as to anybody else. These rights are all settled by a code of law. A private landlord, if he bought a piece of property for redevelopment, would have his obligations to those whose interest he acquired. He would not be required to pay costs of removal in a tenancy of this character; but a good landlord, a man who wanted to act fairly and justly, would see that the strict exercise of his legal rights did not inflict unnecessary hardship; and in a hard case he is at perfect liberty to pay, out of his own pocket, the cost of removal. If the tenants had no legal rights against him, he would, in order to mitigate hardship, go beyond what the law enjoins on him, if he was a good man. A local authority, on the other hand, is strictly chained down by Parliament as to what sort of disbursements it can make. On its tail the whole time is the district auditor, ready to surcharge the members if they make any sort of payment in excess of their strict legal obligation. The purpose of this provision, which has been common form in all Acts since 1936, is to enable the local authority, if it is in the position of a landlord, to act as a good landlord would do in exercising its rights. I ask the Committee not lightly to alter the code of legal injunction as between landlord and tenant. I am not trying to do that in this Bill. What I can promise is this. The purpose of this permissive Clause is to enable the local authority to act like a good man. I will make further inquiries into this matter, to satisfy myself that it is being properly applied; and I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. and learned Friend will permit us to pass on. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend is going to complain that I did not reply to his point, he will find that the Clause is precisely drafted for that purpose. Sub-section (5) says that:

"they may pay also such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards the loss which, in their opinion, he will sustain by reason of the disturbance to his business consequent on his having to quit the building, and in estimating that loss they shall have regard to the period for which the premises occupied by him might reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of his business and the availability of other premises suitable for that purpose."

That is wide enough for me to take into account that sort of purpose which my hon. Friend urged upon me.

Having the strictest regard to what my right hon. Friend has just said, is not this Amendment abundantly justified? The effect of it will be to ensure that the local authority comes up to the standard of the good landlord. Whatever protection and rights existing Statutes provide it still remains the case that a large number of people who suffer injuries as a result of this Measure will get nothing better than a possible, or even probable, ex gratia compassionate allowance. That is a different thing from compensation. We should bear in mind the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend yesterday in resisting a demand that displaced persons should be reinstated in new premises. His attitude then was that th proper way to deal with it was not by reinstatement, but by compensation. He expressed the view that if they were offered the option, they would prefer to take the compensation, assuming the compensation to be fair. That is the really important thing. We cannot assume that compensation will necessarily be fair unless the local authority is required by this Clause to come up to what my right hon. Friend has referred to as the standard of the good landlord.

The Minister has undertaken to look further into this matter. I want to ask him, when he looks into it, to pay proper regard to this point. The Clause, as has been pointed out, is permissive. It gives permission to a great number of different local authorities. The trouble, when you give permission to a great number of different people, is that some may avail themselves of it and others may not. It seems to me that this position might arise. Take the case of two badly-damaged towns, Plymouth and Coventry. Suppose the municipal authority in Plymouth were to say, "We have the power, and we are going to compensate these people generously for the expense of moving and to compensate these traders for the loss of business." Suppose the local authority in Coventry take the contrary view, and say, "We do not think that public funds should be used for this purpose." Surely, in those circumstances, the inhabitants of Coventry would have a reasonable grievance against Parliament, because, by our legislation, we had made it possible for one authority to act in one way, and for another authority to act in another way. I put it to the Committee and the Minister that either these payments are payments which it is proper to make out of public funds, in which case they should be made, or they are not payments which it is proper to make out of public funds, in which case they should not be made. I hope the Minister will face this difficulty, and will try to secure that, whatever the principle laid down, it shall have reasonable uniformity in application.

I suppose that it is something more than a coincidence that those hon. Members who sincerely do not like this Bill are also doing their very best to-day to obstruct it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]I know this is an important point, but even important points can be threshed out ad nauseam. I thought that everything that could possibly have been said on this matter, both for and against, had been said more than half an hour ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why get up?"]In order mainly to make that comment but I want also to associate myself entirely with what the Minister has said, and to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware—and I have had some experience, not only in London, but outside—every single local authority has taken advantage of this permissive power and has paid compensation and reasonable expenses. Hon. Members may say "Then why not make it compulsory and insert it in the Bill?" From my point of view, it would be disastrous if every person who was removed, and who claimed expenses, could go to arbitration against the local authority and allege that the compensation or expenses were inadequate. The Bill would become administratively impossible, and the local authority would be inundated with applications for arbitration because, once a legal obligation is conferred upon a local authority, machinery is created by which disputes would be settled. The local authority as I say would be inundated with applications for compensation, and the whole machine would be clogged up. I think it is wise to trust the local authorities and to leave it to them to do what is right.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who always runs away after he has spoken, made the point that it would be in the interest of local authorities to pay as little as possible. I deny that. My hon. Friend is quite capable of saying the reverse on another occasion —that it is in the political interest of local authorities to pay out as much as they possibly can. I have heard him say it. But, in fact, could any local authority—could Coventry?—face up to displacing a large number of its citizens, and not paying their legal expenses? Could they really face up to it from a political point of view? If it should happen to political friends of mine, they would be committing political suicide if they tried anything like that, and I cannot conceive that any local authority will attempt to deal with a provision like this in an arbitrary way. To give people a legal obligation in what must be a relatively small matter, would make the machine unworkable, and I think the Minister is quite right in resisting this Amendment.

I am very much concerned with the position of the small trader under this Clause. I have just listened to an hon. Member talking about the small trader, and the point of his speech, so far as I understood it, was that he would like to do away with small traders—which class, as the Committee is fully aware, includes a great many ex-Service men, who have taken up small businesses. Everything possible should be done to help these people, and give them every assistance. On a previous occasion, the President of the Board of Trade stated how vastly important it was that the small trader should continue in business. Now, the tenure of the small trader is being compulsorily cut through, and, on that account, I consider that special consideration should be given to the question of the expenses of his removal to another place. Providing him with other premises is not quite the same thing, as his tenure is being terminated compulsorily, and he should be given special consideration. Presumably, the local authorities are going to give him reasonable expenses. If so, what is their objection to having it stated in this Clause that the man shall receive such reasonable expenses as will be incurred by him? I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

May I refer for one moment to a remark, made by the Minister a moment ago? I think myself that the Minister's remark helped the case of the mover and sup- porters of the Amendment. He told us what a good landlord would do, in the payment of compensation and so on; he made the qualifications of a good landlord very clear. According to the Clause, permission is only given to the local authority to become a good landlord. It is only permissive. The Minister cannot compel the local authorities to be the good landlords he spoke about, or, indeed, to be model landlords, therefore why not accept the Amendment and be quite sure about it? Along with, I am sure, many of my colleagues on this Bench, I feel that I must whole-heartedly support the mover of the Amendment.

I have listened with great interest to the remarks from the other side, which, roughly, boil down to this: that although we are charged, as a Committee, with looking after the interests of all these people for whom we legislate, rather than say to the local authorities that they must protect those interests, we are to say to them "Please will you, in such cases as you think proper, do what you think fit?" I do not think that is the proper answer for this Committee to give. An attack was made on hon. Members on this side by more than one hon. Member on the other side, and objections were raised to my hon. Friends and myself. Although one hon. Member did withdraw his remarks, he repeated them a couple of seconds later. That being so, I think it incumbent upon us to show the sincerity of our views in the Division Lobby.

I should like to say a few more words on this Amendment, because I honestly believe that there is still some confusion of mind in certain quarters. May I say, at once, that, though I am most anxious to make progress with this Bill, I am not complaining of obstruction from any quarter at all? I believe the Amendments, and the opposition to them, have been entirely sincere, and this is, admittedly, a difficult Bill. I wonder if hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) have really got distinctly in their minds the distinction between what it is proper to do when one is acquiring an interest, and what it is proper to provide in regard to the exercise of one's rights in that interest, when one has acquired it. Regarding the first question—the compensation payable when acquiring an interest—that exists under the Lands Clauses Act, quite independently of the Sub-section which we are discussing. We are, therefore, concerned in this sub-section only with what a landlord does, after he has acquired the interest, in the exercise of his legal rights.

If in the Lands Clauses Act the tenant or displaced man has had a proper amount of compensation, it is not necessary to pay any more money.

I am sorry if my hon. and gallant Friend—it may be my fault—has not followed what I have said, and perhaps he did not follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If a man's interest is acquired the whole scheme of compensation exists under the existing law independently of this Clause. This Clause is required mainly in the case of the weekly tenant for the reason, that the local authority would never propose to acquire the weekly tenant's interest. It would acquire the interest of the superior landlord and then exercise the right of that superior landlord against the weekly tenant—I do not know if my hon. and gallant Friend follows the distinction—

indicated assent.

Therefore, when you are acquiring an interest, you have to pay compensation independently of this Clause. We now come to what happens when you exercise your rights as landlord under the interests that you have acquired. This Clause is to enable the local authority in such a case to make a payment which it is not under any legal obligation to make, and which the landlord whose interest the local authority has acquired is also under no legal obligation to make. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) asked, Why not make it obligatory? It would be improper, in my submission, to make obligatory on a local authority what is not obligatory on a private landlord. After that explanation and the explanations that have been given by my right hon. and learned Friend, I am sure that my hon.. Friends behind me do not wish to go into the Division Lobby in defence of a principle which cannot be that which they thought they were supporting.

Is there not a great difference in breaking a tenancy by compelling removal from one place to another?

The only other point to which I did not refer was that made—and it is very germane—by my right hon. Friend before he had to leave the Committee, namely, that a provision in this form has been the operative law under the Housing Act. He said since 1925, and we corrected him and said "since 1936," because Section 44 of the Act of 1936 is that which I know contained it. That was a consolidating Statute and the power has actually existed a good deal longer, I rather believe since 1925, though I am now speaking from memory. In all that time I am not aware that a local authority has acted wrongfully in the matter. I cannot conceive that a local authority given this power is likely to risk the extraordinary unpopularity, which it would incur if it did not exercise it properly. I really think, in spite of the sincere feelings which I know prompted the putting down of this Amendment, that my hon. Friends were under the erroneous impression that there would be no legal rights apart from this Subsection if an interest was being acquired. I hope that I have made the distinction clear.

Will my hon. Friend consider between now and the Report stage, whether some provision could be inserted in the Clause to give some additional safeguard to the man who is dispossessed in the case of a refusal, which he thinks is wrong, of payment of compensation for removal? If he would consider that between now and the Report stage it might assist considerably. The argument has been that we should not impose upon local authorities higher standards than upon private landlords. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have expected local authorities to set an example.

As the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to refer to me, I wish to say that I did appreciate entirely the points he was making, but I still think that this one is not covered. Whereas the private land- owner is not legally required to do what this Sub-section will empower the local authority to do, in the case of the private landlord and the tenant, the two parties respectively know what their agreement is, and the tenant has an absolute legal and reasonable expectation of the whole currency of his lease. But Parliament has now intervened arbitrarily to break and render invalid that lease and, when a local authority or indeed a private landlord is empowered by Parliament to break a lease like this, they ought to be made to give this compensation.

My hon. and gallant Friend is really mistaken. The planning authority steps into the shoes of the owner of the interest it is acquiring, and has no more and no less right as against the tenant than the private landlord. It simply steps into his shoes.

I am impressed by what my hon Friend has said, but I still think that the matter requires some consideration. I said at an earlier stage that it would perhaps be necessary to press this Amendment, but in view of the fact that the Government recognise our sincerity, it would be out of all proportion to the unworthy remarks from hon. Members opposite, if we allowed that to affect what we have decided to do. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will give further consideration to this matter before the Report stage.

I will certainly examine. everything that has been said, but as at present advised, I am bound to say to the Committee that I think the Subsection is quite right as it stands. I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend; I am myself convinced that these Amendments were put forward with perfect sincerity, and I believe that we shall make greater progress in this Committee if we all credit each other with sincerity.

In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 34, line 31, to leave out from "for," to the end of line 38.

This refers to a case of where war damage has been done to land and development is refused and the owner is, therefore, unable to do anything with his land. He is placed in a very difficult position indeed; he cannot do anything with his land because he is forbidden by the development authorities. The Clause says that he is given the right to serve a notice requiring the authority to purchase his land in a period of about six months, but under the provision in Sub-section (1, b), even though labour and materials are available, the Minister is given the right to determine whether the development that he wishes to carry out can be lawfully carried out. Also, before he is entitled to have his land purchased he may be required to carry out alternative development.

I regard those requirements as very unreasonable. In the first place, the Minister is taking upon himself judicial functions, seeing that he will determine whether the development can be lawfully carried out. Under Sub-section (8) he takes complete and absolute power to determine whether the conditions can be lawfully carried out. That is entirely contrary to the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers' Powers. I shall not read out those recommendations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham {Mr. Silkin) is really under a misapprehension it he thinks we are trying to obstruct this Bill. I do not intend to do so, and I said so before my hon. Friend passed his rather unkind remark. I think the Committee should seriously consider whether the Minister ought to take it upon himself to say whether a development can be lawfully carried out, or that before the owner can have his land purchased he should be required by the local authority to go in for another kind of development altogether. What the planning authority are going to say is: "We would like you to speculate in this kind of way because we believe you will be able to get equally beneficial use from your land." But supposing the authority say "We will not let you develop it as you would be entitled to do under the War Damage Act, we think you should develop it in a way which we feel will have equally beneficial results," and that then the whole thing turns out to be a howling failure, who is to pay for it? I say that these conditions are quite unreasonable, and I invite the Committee to say that in every case where an owner is prevented from developing his land which has been war damaged, which he would be entitled to do under the War Damage Act, he shall be entitled to give notice to have his interest purchased by the planning authority if he wishes to do so within six months' time.

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed this Amendment with that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller): in page 35, line 14, leave out from beginning, to end of line 16.

The Amendment standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends is of a somewhat more limited nature than the Amendment which has been moved, but I think the object of the two Amendments is much the same, and I do not propose to go over the ground covered already by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). The position under this Clause appears to be that the owner of land when he is estopped by the interim development authority from using land as he wishes would have the right to sell it to the local authority, but that right is whittled away and whittled away in a very vague and indefinite manner. The right of compulsory sale, if I may use that expression, is subject to this limitation: if it can be shown that the land can be used for some purpose—it may be a quite different one from that to which the owner desires to put it—then the owner will not be able to get rid of his land in the way mentioned. So far as I can see the words "alternative development" are not defined anywhere in the Bill. There is in a later Sub-section a reference to certain matters to which regard must be had in considering what is alternative development, but there is no real definition, and I cannot see why this right of sale in the event of develop- ment being refused should be made subject to this particular condition. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make the matter clear, but at the moment I can see no justification for that provision.

Both the Amendments which have been mentioned deal with the question of alternative development, and it is to that point that I shall mainly direct the few remarks which I have to make, but before passing to that I should like to deal with the other point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) about the usurpation, as he would put it, of judicial powers by the Minister. If one examines the sort of thing the Minister will have to look into I do not think that either the framers of the Donoughmore Report or my hon. and gallant Friend would suggest that there would be usurpation. It must be determined that the development could, apart from planning, be lawfully carried out. That means that the applicant must have a sufficient interest in the property to enable him to carry out the work; for example, if he is a tenant, that there is no restriction in his lease to prevent it. I cannot see that the determination of points of that kind, which are essentially conditions precedent and are very easy to determine, is in any way a usurpation of judicial powers. It would be an incredible piece of obliquity to have such questions taken out of Ministerial hands and sent for decision to an arbitrator or the courts. That is my answer to the first point which the hon. and gallant Member raised.

Now I come to the question of alternative development. The provisions as of alternative development apply not only to development after war damage but to new development, and one has to examine and face the question whether the alternative development is practicable. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said that there is no definition, but he did, with the fairness which always characterises him, refer to the Subsection in which a very clear indication is given. It seems to me that it cannot be argued to the contrary that if alternative development is practicable, and that is really the point that the Sub- section makes, then the owner should sell his land in the open market. My hon. and gallant Friend asks, What about a loss? There the position is that if the owner is discontented with the decision of the local authority as to the practicability of the alternative development he can appeal to the Minister and can have it considered by him and considered on the lines of the criteria laid down in the Sub-section referred to by the hon. Member for Daventry. That, I suggest, is as ample provision as anyone is going to get against loss in the uncertain life and circumstances in which we live. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the wisest of us are often greatly misled as to subsequent movements in value of property which we have acquired, and I consider, and I ask the Committee to accept the view, that if the local authority, and the Minister on appeal, consider that the development is practicable, then the owner has got a reasonable and square deal, but I cannot accept the principle that if the owner cannot do what he likes with his land then the local authority must buy it.

I have been listening and not interrupting my hon. and learned Friend as he has crossed out argument after argument which I put forward, although I do not agree with him, but under the War Damage Act the owner would be entitled to develop the property and now the development authority can come in and say, "No, under this Bill we are not going to allow you to do so, but you may do something entirely different." I think that is being rather harsh.

I am very anxious to help my hon. and gallant Friend, because one does not want misunderstandings between us, but the point I am making is that we are all accepting positive planning. The Second Reading decision means an acceptance of positive planning. Personally, I believe in positive planning, and we have accepted it, and are proceeding on that hypothesis. If we accept positive planning we cannot accept the position that if the owner, by reason of positive planning, is unable to do what he likes with his own land he should be in a position at once to get rid of it. He must adjust his development of the land to the public interest and public requirements as laid down by the planning code. It is far too late to turn back the clock. This is not the time to put forward an Amendment to make that curious use of the clock hands. I suggest that that is the one basis. The other basis is that it is fair, as the Clause does, to throw the loss on to the local planning authority during the period when the land is dead through planning restrictions, but if there is a reasonable and practicable way of using it with the safeguards which the Clause proposes, then I suggest that the alternative development period is right.

I beg to move, in page 34, line 41, to leave out from "to," to end of Sub-section, and to insert:

"provide him with land of similar tenure and a cost of works payment equivalent to any appropriate payment by the War Damage Commission."

I have put down this Amendment because not only will the owner be dispossessed of his land but, as far as I can see, he may receive only a value payment. This is very important, because it will undoubtedly cause great injustice to many owners of commercial buildings, shops, and so on in a damaged area. I will give an example. An owner has been advised already by the War Damage Commission that he is to receive a cost of works payment in regard to his damaged building which is in the middle of a blitzed town but a great deal of which building still stands. Under this Bill the cost of works payment will be swept away, he is only likely to receive a value payment, he will not be able to get land as well, and he will not be provided with the money to build even if he should get the land. Therefore, under the Bill, an owner who has received a notification from the War Damage Commission that he will be given a cost of works payment will lose the benefit of a marketable asset if he receives a notice to treat under the Bill. This is likely to happen in many cases in an extensively damaged area, and it will cause considerable injustice.

I would point out that this would be completely inconsistent with the injunction of the War Damage Act of 1943, in which there is what is known as an escalator Clause, by which a person who has property of this kind may eventually receive a payment above the value payment. Unfortunately that Clause has not yet been put into operation and is still being discussed between different bodies and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would, however, enable the War Damage Commission to make an extra payment after consideration. That payment could be called a portable war damage payment which would be given over and above the value payment, so that the owner might build a new property, if he can get land in another place. The Treasury are bound by the Act to make a report on the escalator Clause sooner or later.

In the case of churches, an agreement has already been reached between the War Damage Commission and the owners of churches. For instance, a church might be situated in the midst of a blitzed area and therefore subject to this very Bill—indeed, many of them will be. If it is not in that area, the War Damage Commission have, of course, promised to repair the church, but if it is in that area, they are willing to supply funds for rebuilding a plain church elsewhere. That concession, however, has not been granted to property owners in the blitzed areas, who only receive the value payment. Although I thoroughly approve of that agreement, we must remember the churches make no contribution whatever to the War Damage Commission, whereas property owners have to make a very considerable contribution for a very long period. Under the Bill, extra payment is made to two classes of people already—owner-occupiers are given compensation at a higher rate and owners of agricultural land are similarly treated.

On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. This matter of compensation and the special treatment for owner-occupiers arises under Clause 46. Is it really desirable that we should begin to discuss that matter now, seeing that there are some Amendments down on the Order Paper to Clause 46?

On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. Surely my hon. Friend is entitled to give an example to the Committee so that he may support his argument?

On that point of Order, I think that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is technically right. Of course the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) can use a short illustration. I think that this is a comparatively narrow Amendment, so I hope we shall not have anything leading up to a repetition of the discussion we have already had, or even a further discussion which might lead to the elimination, if it went too far, of discussion on Clause 45, which might be a pity. I am suggesting that this decision should be kept short and very much to the point.

If my hon. Friend had been a little patient I should have passed on more quickly than I have been able to do owing to the time taken by his interruption. The owner-occupier of a house and the owner of agricultural land have a special advantage which, in my opinion, should be definitely extended to commercial owners. There are many small shopkeepers and owners of small factories—indeed, I had a letter only yesterday from a constituent of mine who is placed in this position. He has been bombed out, though his property still partly remains, and he will only get a value payment under this Bill. He is anxious to re-instate himself in the blitzed area, and, if he cannot, then he should have a proper payment so that he can start his business elsewhere. There is similar protection—about which we shall hear more on Clause 29—for the owners of statutory undertakings. Nothing can be done to them without the consent of the Minister, which again requires the approval of Parliament.

It will be said in mitigation that these unfortunate people will be able, possibly, to lease their land from the local authority, or indeed, in certain circumstances the local authority will be able to sell them that land. It may well be, however, that the local authority will do nothing of the kind. The local authority are not bound to lease that land to the original occupier. They can even go further than that; they can if they like, lease it to somebody else and there is no appeal. Those are the points which are of great importance to small property owners and to commercial interests, and I trust that my Amendment will receive support from all quarters of the Committee. Finally I will assure my hon. Friends opposite, when they talk of motive and so on, that I have no motive except that of the interests of the individual, who, I think, should not be treated unjustly by any Bill brought before this House. There is no other motive in my mind except that I have learned long ago not to deify, as so many of my hon. Friends opposite do, the local authorities.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) did not regard the point of Order I raised as being in any way unfriendly but there are some very important matters connected with compensation which will have to be fully discussed on Clause 46. With regard to the Amendment he has just moved, I do not think it would be possible to provide in this Bill for the local authority to undertake provision of other land where land is purchased from any individual under this Bill. On the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised with regard to a cost of works payment, I would draw the attention of the Government to this very difficult and anomalous point which exists at present and which will have to be discussed under this Bill. I would like to address my remarks especially to the learned Solicitor-General. Under the law as it exists, where property has been destroyed by enemy action, if that property falls into a certain category, if it can, under the planning legislation, be rebuilt upon the same site, the War Damage Commission will pay the cost of works, that is the cost of rebuilding that building on the same site. If, under the planning scheme of the local authority, the owner of that land is precluded from rebuilding the building upon the same site, he then is able only to obtain from the War Damage Commission compensation at the value that the building would have had had it been sold on 31st March, 1939. The hon. Member for Southampton in this Amendment is seeking, as regards this particular Clause, to rectify that anomaly. An anomaly it clearly is because, under the War Damage Commission legislation, the position is broadly this; the owner of a property is the insurer and the War Damage Commission is the underwriter; and the amount of compensation payable depends upon the decision taken by the planning authority upon entirely extraneous considerations, which should obviously not affect the amount of compensation to which the insured person is entitled.

I do not want to go into this any more deeply at the present time, but I want to ask the Solicitor-General to consider this matter and give some explanation in his reply. It might be argued that the point we are raising now is really one affecting the legislation on war damage, but, in point of fact, when a deputation from Plymouth and Devonport went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer early in August he replied that it was not appropriate for him to discuss the matter raised as it concerned the Town and Country Planning Bill now before Parliament.

12.45 p.m.

There is great danger that if an aggrieved subject goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about War Damage, he will be told that it cannot be dealt with because it must be considered when the Town and Country Planning Bill comes before the House of Commons. I want to give the Solicitor-General a general warning that it would not be entirely satisfactory if he said now that this was not a matter to be dealt with under this Bill, but should come under the War Damage Act.

The matter which has just been raised by my hon. Friend is one of great importance to cities which have been destroyed, and the authorities in which are wondering what they will get in the way of compensation, either under this Bill or the War Damage Act. Although I realise the narrowness of the Ruling which has been given, from the Chair, I do not like to be silent. There is a feeling in the city I represent that there is a great anomaly in the fact that if a building can be put back on the same site, where damage has taken place, a cost-of-works payment can be arrived at, but if, for reasons of town planning, it is impossible to erect the building on that site, then only a value payment is allowed. That is not understood and cannot be accepted as sound common sense, wisdom or reason. I do not know at what stage it may be desired to discuss the matter in full, but it is such a vital question to the trading interests in the city I represent that I do not wish to miss any opportunity of bringing it before the Committee for the most careful consideration of Members and the Government.

I must disclose a personal interest in this matter, because I am largely affected by war damage. I would like to support what has been said with such technical knowledge by my hon. Friend opposite. This Amendment on which a most proper Ruling has been given from the Chair illustrates the appalling nature of the procedure of the House of Commons, which I have often tried to get altered. We cannot discuss this matter apart from the War Damage Act. No person could keep in Order and follow the Ruling which has been given on this Amendment. I only want to say to the Solicitor-General that I hope he will consider this matter from the point of view of a possible amendment of the War Damage Act, a possibility which I cannot explain, without being out of Order. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will give a sympathetic answer. I think there is no opposition to the point which has been put.

I do not want to delay the Committee, but you can well understand, Major Milner, that I must speak on this subject on behalf of my constituents. We expected an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we were told that we would have to wait until this Bill came before the House. I hope the Government will give due consideration to all that has been said.

It does not affect only Plymouth.

I think it would be convenient, and follow the wish of the Committee, if I, first, very shortly dealt with the Amendment before us because, after all, we have to make up our minds on it, and then said a few words, without transgressing the ruling of the Chair, on the wider subject which has been put forward. The Amendment which has been moved is, of course, a complete contradiction of the terms of the Bill. The Bill provides that where in certain circumstances permission for interim development is refused, or granted subject to conditions, the owner may call on the interim development authority to purchase his own interest in the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) suggested that the obligation should be three-fold—first, to reinstate the owner, second, to provide land on a similar tenure and, third, to make an equivalent payment to that which the owner would have received as a cost of works payment if planning requirements had not prevented his rebuilding. I must point out to the Committee that, of these requirements, the second and third are contrary to the policy of the Bill and, moreover, that the third also runs contrary to the principle that this House already has accepted in relation to war damage, namely, that if for any reason war damage is not made good no cost of works payment is made but only a value payment. Therefore, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, but I do view with the greatest sympathy and appreciation the points which my hon. Friends have put on the question of the War Damage Act. The principle is as I have stated it—that where you cannot replace there should be, generally, a value payment.

I would ask my hon. Friends to consider the provisions of Section 14 of the War Damage Act, which deal with compulsory acquisition. There, it is provided that where you do have compulsory acquisition you would have only a value payment. We are getting very near to that position, because in a great number of cases where development is refused—the present Clause comes into operation only where development is refused—you would have compulsory acquisition of the property for one purpose or another. But I can well see that my hon. Friends have in mind, that there is a range of properties outside that consideration of compulsory acquisition. All I can go so far as to say now is that I shall be very happy to consider the situation of such properties, and that in my humble but comprehensive position in the Government I can undertake to consider the matter both from the point of view of town and country planning and war damage. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friends.

Would it be possible —I think it would be in Order to ask this—before the Bill leaves this House, to obtain an announcement from the Government on the subject of the future of the War Damage Act, because it affects this Clause and Sub-section very materially? The Committee will appreciate that the War Damage Act has a limited life and, therefore, affects directly this Clause. If it was possible to have an announcement on the subject before this Bill finally leaves this House for another place, I think it would greatly facilitate discussions on the matter:

I would like to emphasise the point which the Noble Lord has just made, and to make this further point: When this Bill becomes an Act, what is perhaps now only an apprehension in a comparatively small number of cases, will become a reality in a large number of cases. Before we part with this Bill, I think we must have a definite statement from the Government on the steps they intend to take to ensure that this Measure does not result in anomalies and injustices on a very large scale.

As my hon. Friends appreciate, I must bring this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will certainly do so, and pass on to him the earnest feelings that have been expressed in all quarters of the Committee. With that, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

I would like to point out that we expressed ourselves very moderately on this matter. We could have made long and emphatic speeches to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

I greatly appreciate what the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has said, but before withdrawing my Amendment I would like to say that I was fully aware of my difficulties and that I am grateful indeed that I have been able to bring this matter to the notice of the Committee. The Debate will have served a useful purpose in this way, by drawing the attention of the War Damage Commission and the Treasury to the importance that this Committee places on the Commission operating the escalator clause, which they have power to do, as soon as may be. If they consider operating that clause it will enable them to give more than value payments and the Treasury, I believe, as I have already said, under the Act are bound to make a report sooner or later. Those negotiations have been going on for some time, but nothing has happened so far, and I therefore hope that the discussion we have had will have repercussions elsewhere. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 34, line 42, to leave out from "land" to the end of the Sub-section, and insert:

"and, subject to the provisions of this section, where such a notice is given the authority shall be deemed as from the date on which the notice takes effect in accordance with the following provisions of this section to have been authorised to purchase the interest compulsorily and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on that date."

This puts an owner, who operates under Section 27, in the same position as if purchase was taking place under the earlier provisions of the Bill by the local authority.

I beg to move, in page 35, line 9, to leave out "one month," and to insert "two months."

On further consideration it has been thought that the Minister requires two months to consider the manifold matters that arise on this point. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) expresses genial doubts. I do not want to go into it in detail, but I can give half-a-dozen illustrations of matters of some weight which will have to be considered by the Minister, and which will take some time. If my right hon. Friend does it in two months, I think the Department will be operating extremely well.

I beg to move, in page 35, line 15, to leave out from "fulfilled," to end of line 18, and to insert:

"shall within the said period direct that the notice shall not take effect;

(c) if he is satisfied that having regard to the benefit which would accrue to the owner in question from the land or any part thereof either in its existing state or if there were carried out thereon any alternative development for which permission would be granted and which could be lawfully carried out within a reasonable period, it is equitable so to do, may within the said period of two months direct that the notice shall not take effect, or shall take effect only as respects such part of the land as may be specified in the direction;

and subject to any direction given under this subsection the notice shall take effect at the expiration of the said period of two months."

Again this indicates that it is the object of the Clause to leave it to the Minister to decide what amount of land may equitably be taken with the damaged property.

I beg to move, in page 36, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (5).

This Sub-section defines the meaning of "reasonably beneficial use." I am not sure that there is any real need to define what is reasonably beneficial use, and, if one studies this definition, it appears to say that any building or land that has been damaged can be considered as not available for reasonably beneficial use, and anything that is completely restored to its former state can be considered as available for reasonably beneficial use. In either case it seems redundant, and I move the Amendment in the hope that the Solicitor-General may inform us why it is necessary to have it in.

The whole point, it seems to me, is that what is or is not "reasonably beneficial use" is a question of fact and I should have thought it unnecessary to have it defined.

Whether a definition is necessary or not, is largely a matter of first impression. I quite see that my hon. Friend may have taken the view that the term would be an easy one either to consider judicially or to deal with from the point of view of administration, but we have considered this with great care and we have consulted those who are specially concerned with war damage and the action and administration of the War Damage Commission, and the care that they have taken with their own side of the work is a matter which they would not criticise. I should like them to know that it was in deference to that aspect of the matter that a full definition was put in. I am always prepared, when any one suggests that a definition or a drafting should be reconsidered to do so, and it is obviously the duty of the Law Officers; therefore I will consider what my hon. Friends have said and if on consideration we take a different view they will receive notification of it.

It seems that there are grounds for inserting a definition of what must be, I should have thought, in every case a question of fact as opposed to a question of law. But I hope the Solicitor-General will give this definition further consideration. One of the chief points about a definition is that its meaning should be clear and precise. Paragraph (a) says:

"Land shall be deemed to have been rendered or to remain incapable of reasonably beneficial use in consequence of war damage if it was immediately after the occurrence of the damage, or is, in a state such as to make it incapable of being as beneficially used while remaining in that state as it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage.

It seems to me that that definition is capable of being interpreted that land shall be deemed incapable of reasonably beneficial use until it has been completely restored to its condition before any war damage was sustained, in view of the two words "as," coming before "beneficial," and "as" in the next line. When one looks at the definition in paragraph (b), exactly the converse is stated, that it shall be deemed to be capable of reasonably beneficial use only when it is fully restored to its pre-existing condition. It seems easy to find what must be in each case a question of fact. I hope that, if a definition is to be inserted, the Solicitor-General will consider this with great care.

I beg to move; in page 37, line 7, at end, to add:

"() References in this Act to land which has been acquired and is for the time being held by a local planning authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act include references to land acquired by such an authority under this Section which has not for the time being been appropriated by them for any such purpose as is mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section fifteen of this Act."

These words give the local planning authority the same power of disposition in carrying out work and the like as they have under earlier Clauses of the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 38, line 10, to leave out "in respect of," and to insert:

"Where the person carrying on a statutory undertaking is injuriously affected by".

Perhaps I may deal at the same time with my second Amendment:

In page 38, line 13, to leave out from "recover," to end of line 15, and to insert:

"from the interim development authority reasonable compensation in respect of such injurious affection in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable in respect of the injurious affection to any land acquired for the purposes of the undertaking after the date of the passing of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943."

I think that will will be agreeable to the Committee.

On Clause 21 I referred to the method of paying compensation to statutory undertakers, which is dealt with in the Fourth Schedule. Compensation arises under Clause 29 in respect of the refusal of a statutory undertaker to develop land under an interim development application. Local authorities take the view that the compensation which should be paid to a statutory undertaker in these circumstances should be based upon the same principle as that paid to any other applicant, and the Town and Country Planning Act provides specifically for the payment of compensation in respect of the refusal of an applicant to develop land. I fail to understand why the compensation to a statutory undertaker should be based upon different principles. However, I should like to make the same suggestion as I made in respect of Clause 21, that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit the authorities to discuss the matter with him in the same way as he has already had discussion with statutory undertakers, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.

I shall be most happy to accede to the suggestion. I am sorry for my own sake that I have not had the advantage of seeing at an earlier stage, the hon. Member and those for whom he is so ably speaking, but he will realise that the time up to the first presentation of the Bill was very short and that there were many matters which required consultation. I hope that at an early opportunity suitable to him and his friends they will meet me and I will consider their point and report the result to my hon. Friend.

Is it not a fact that the Amendment will have the result of denying statutory undertakers their proper compensation?

I beg to move, in page 39, line 8, to leave out paragraph (f), and to insert:

"(f) Where the person carrying on a statutory undertaking is injuriously affected by the making of such an order he shall be entitled to recover from the interim development authority reasonable compensation in respect of such injurious affection in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable in respect of the injurious affection to any land acquired for the purposes of the undertaking after the date of the passing of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943"

I need say even less on this Amendment than I did on the previous one, because I take it that the same undertaking applies.

I am happy to say that it will be covered by the same suggestion. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas), neither my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), nor myself, nor the Government, nor anyone is prejudging the question. All that is to happen is that the views of the local authorities on this important point will be put to the Government, represented by myself. He need not be afraid that any matter is being prejudged.

Neither of these Amendments asks that there shall be no compensation to statutory authorities. They merely ask that the compensation shall be assessed in another way. In view of my hon. and learned Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 40, line 16, to leave out "or."

This and the following Amendment in my name stand together. The Clause does not include Section 140 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, or its equivalent Section, Section 107 of the Public Health Act, 1936. The case of London is frequently omitted in Bills and we have to move Amendments to make them applicable to London. The purpose of these Amendments is to do that in respect of this Bill.

I am able to accept this and the next Amendment.

I think that this Clause is unnecessary for the country districts. It imposes control on the design of farm buildings. They are already controlled so far as their type is concerned under the Ribbon Development Act, and the actual building of anything on a farm is controlled under the Ministry of Health by the local district council. I agree that the Bill should be applicable to factories or public buildings in towns, but it should not be applicable to such things as a silo, which is necessary but not a work of art, or a Dutch barn, which has a tin roof. Neither of these things would be suitable in towns and would be rightfully objected to. In the country, however, they are necessary for agricultural production. I do not see that there is any necessity to subject buildings on farms, as this Clause does, to the same rules that are applicable to buildings in the towns. The farmer is already overwhelmed by the number of forms he has to fill in, and this Clause will accentuate that burden. It is not realised that small farmers have no clerical staff. I have in the last two months had to deal with six different county and Government Departments over one particular question and there have been innumerable forms to fill in. Recently the Pay-as-you-earn scheme for Income Tax has added to the small farmers' difficulties. All these things hinder business.

I. cannot see the object of having another authority on top of those that already exist to send out forms about buildings on farms. It is becoming absolutely oppressive in the countryside and it is all so needless. Farms are often eight or nine miles from a town; they are covered by trees and hedges and are off the main road, so that the ugly buildings which are a necessity to the farm are not very apparent. Farmers have to spend their money to keep up-to-date on mechanised farming, alternative husbandry and so on, and these things necessitate different instruments and new buildings. Such buildings would, rightly be objected to in the town, but they are essential in the country and are not a blot on the landscape. Some authority often comes down and points out what he calls an ugly building and says that no concrete or asbestos should be used. That sort of thing tends to put a burden on agricultural production which is unnecessary and unfair to the industry. While we have an Act to control the siting of buildings and an authority to see that there are proper sanitary conditions, the farmers must be allowed to put up mechanically designed buildings which are suitable for their purpose in order to keep up-to-date and to increase production. They should not have to put up with people interfering and saying, "This and that must not be like that." It all means extra expense because of some aesthetic town planning consideration which pays no regard to the business of farming. We have to look at these things from the aspect of production and not from the aesthetic aspect.

I support what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I cannot see why the Clause should be in this Bill at all. The Bill deals with blitzed and blighted areas, but the Clause goes far beyond that and brings all farm buildings under the control of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. What is the situation with regard to farm buildings to-day? It is broadly true that so long as local materials were used, local stone, local tiles and timber, farm buildings, whatever their shape, seemed to harmonise very well with the surroundings. As soon as new materials came along, ordered out of a Birmingham catalogue and not dug up from the soil, buildings began to be run up which offended that natural conservatism which, I am glad to say, everyone has who is brought up in the fresh air of the countryside. Sooner or later we shall have to control the design and appearance of farm buildings. Anyone who knows villages like Lacock and Castlecombe in Wiltshire, would not wish to have concrete cement and corrugated iron structures alongside their beautiful architecture. This Bill, however, is not the place to take powers to control such development.

In the country, I agree there are dilapidated and damaged buildings on farms but that dilapidation and the damage were not due to enemy action and flying bombs. They were due to unregulated imports of foreign food. The war has made our agricultural industry prosperous, and as soon as an industry begins to earn money we get a lot of new ideas, and enterprising men come along and say, "It is worth while putting our brains into this industry." Experiments in farm building are going on today, and why should we put all this development under the control of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning unless we know a good deal more about the ability of that Ministry to understand modern farming, and how this control will work? How many more forms will the farmer have to fill up if this Clause goes through? What appeal will a practical man have from the predilections of an urban-minded planner who disagrees with the kind of buildings the farmer wants? Sooner or later we must find a form of collaboration between those who have to work inside the buildings, producing the nation's food, and those whose chief concern is the appearance of the buildings from outside. When that is properly thought out I will vote for it, but it is wrong to throw the whole thing into the hands of a Ministry which may have little or no experience of what our modern agriculture means.

I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend. The Scott Committee said in their Report:

"The present exemption granted to agricultural buildings is unsatisfactory. All buildings should come under review."

But they made a proviso, which was:

"It is recognised that special criteria will need to be adopted in considering the suitability or otherwise of agricultural buildings from the amenity point of view."

The Bill takes no notice of that proviso. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which I most heartily support in the work it does, took the credit for having persuaded the Scott Committee to make that recommendation, but I would point out that there are no representatives of the N.F.U. on the C.P.R.E. Farm buildings are particularly vulnerable from the point of view of aesthetics, because of their surroundings, but a few trees planted round them will effectively screen them, although it takes some time to produce the desired effect. The high capital cost of farm buildings in relation to turnover necessitates every possible saving being made in their construction.

A planning authority, except where there are farmers upon it, may have an out-of-date conception of what a farm ought to look like, and may not recognise that the Dutch barn and the silo are taking the place of the older farm buildings. Nobody laying out buildings to-day would think of constructing the older types of building, involving much labour in construction; these have given place to buildings made of cement, asbestos, and other materials which are not so picturesque but are practical and suitable for their purpose. If Clause 35 is left in, it will cause considerable trouble to the small farmer. While there must be some safeguard against the existence of unnecessary eyesores, the Minister could devise some such safeguard without the very sweeping provisions of this Clause.

I have been a very great supporter of the Bill, but there is no necessity to include farm buildings in it. The farmer already has many difficulties to face and the Bill will add another burden for him to bear. He may think that it does not make it worth while to go on with his job. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that planning authorities in the countryside are reasonable people and will know that the farmers have to have Dutch barns and such modern accessories, but let me give him as an illustration a case which actually happened. In the area of Chipping Sod-bury in my constituency there was an escarpment on which no house could be built. A farmer wanted to build a house, but he was not allowed to do so, because he was told that it would spoil the beauty of the escarpment. So ignorant were the local committee that they did not even examine the contours of the escarpment, when they would have found out that the house was beyond the escarpment and could not be seen. Only after very great pressure did they give way, and allow the farmer to build a cottage of beautiful Cotswold stone. We are running great danger if we bring farm buildings into the Bill. Usually they blend with the countryside. Motoring through England, one can see ugly petrol signs and other such things, but surely no one ever complained about the ugliness of farm build- ings. Town planners may not realise that modern accessories, such as Dutch barns, are necessary to farm buildings nowadays.

We must guard against another thing. We all want to help the small man in agriculture, and to make a ladder by which the farm labourer can become a smallholder and go on further to improve his position. The rich man may not be affected so much by the Bill, because he can afford to put up costly buildings, but the smallholder who started in a small way by putting up corrugated iron buildings and improved his buildings when he made good will be more severely affected. Such a man might not be allowed even to start, in future, if he is confronted with a town planning authority who do not agree with him. We all regard the countryside as beautiful, and we all want to preserve it. Can anyone really say that our countryside is made ugly by our farm buildings? On the whole, I should say that our glorious farm buildings beautify our countryside. Nobody is keener on the beauty of the countryside than the farmer and the agricultural worker; why put more difficulties in their way in the shape of some authority who do not realise their difficulties and may say to them: "You can't put up this or that building"? I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to recognise that it is not necessary to include farm buildings in the Bill.

I support what has been said by the hon. Members who have spoken against the Clause. It is extraordinary that a Minister who was once Minister of Agriculture should have put something into the Bill which has really nothing to do with agriculture. There is no reason why this Clause should be there, and it ought to be removed. It is bound to create difficulties when new buildings required by agriculture are being put up. Farmers wish to keep the countryside as beautiful as it now is and they will not put up 'buildings which are not necessary. The Clause may prevent people from starting in a small way. The siting of farm buildings is already controlled by the Ribbon Development Act; surely that is quite sufficient. No case has been made out for the Clause, so far as I know, and I hope it will be removed from the Bill.

I support the deletion of the Clause, which is entirely unnecessary and outside the scope of the Bill. The principal object of the Bill is to control new buildings in destroyed areas in the towns, but to try to control at the same time agricultural buildings, which are usually very far from any damaged area, is to go outside the scope of the Bill. I cannot see that it is necessary to add yet one more control to those under which the agricultural industry already labours. We all agree that county war agricultural executive committees were a war-time necessity, but I do not think they are a very popular feature of our present day agriculture. Still more control imposed upon necessary farm buildings will be a heavy strain on the industry. It is difficult enough in all conscience to get materials to construct new buildings which are necessary to bring farms up to the standard which is required. It is necessary to introduce modern machinery, such as the combined harvester, with its accompanying drier. It is very difficult to get the materials and the labour, and permission from the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour, to carry nut any necessary construction. If to those controls is to be added the control of planning, the difficulty of adding necessary buildings to farms will be very greatly increased.

In that connection I venture to say that although planning committees are generally composed of practical men, yet a great deal of the routine work necessarily falls on their officials, and however good those officials are they try to make everything conform to certain rules of construction, dimension and situation. Those rules are very inapplicable to farm buildings. I suggest that the Clause is an unnecessary encumbrance on agriculture, and I hope very much that it will not be pressed.

I do not know whether it will be convenient for me to intervene at this stage. Needless to say I do not intervene for the purpose of discouraging any other contributions, but in courtesy to those who have already spoken. I am put in a rather difficult position not in defending the Clause, which I am convinced is absolutely right, but because of the work which I have tried to do, inside this House and outside, during the last 20 years, to preserve our extraordinarily beautiful countryside, represented by many of those who have spoken. I agree entirely with those who say that it is not the farms that have damaged our countryside; of course it is not. Nor is it likely. Let me put this to my hon. Friends: One of the main objects behind our present conception of planning is to prevent the sort of destruction of the countryside, and the ignoring of the problems of agriculture that have gone on for so long. That is one of the main objects of our planning legislation. Again and again we have been asked to give full consideration to agriculture, and I agree that we will have to defend agricultural interests against interests which very often have no particular sympathy with it. What would be the effect if the very people whose interests we wish to protect in the countryside say, "We and we alone ought to be absolutely free from any control"? I am absolutely convinced that resistance to this Clause is not in the interests of agriculture.

1.45 p.m.

Let me endeavour to relieve the anxiety of some of my hon. and gallant Friends. First they say that some local planning authority may be extremely foolish and reject the design of the building and they seem to think that would end the matter. Of course it would not. The farmer, the applicant, would appeal to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. [Interruption.] I recognise the sincerity of those who are opposing this Clause, but I am sure they will have the courtesy to hear what I have to say in its defence. He will have a right of appeal, the same right of appeal as a factory owner in an urban district would have in comparable circumstances. Let me assume for a moment that it was found generally that there was some class of building which it was desirable that farmers should put up freely, and that some local planning authorities were not very wise or up to date in the administration of this Clause, or in their understanding of farming. There would be nothing to stop my Minister, in a proper case, in the exercise of his powers under the Act of 1943, from taking such applications over himself, so that he could consider them direct. Needless to say he would always be in the closest touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

My hon. and gallant Friend who made the first speech in opposition to this Clause talked about a silo not being a work of art. Of course it is not, and thank heavens, it does not try to be a work of art. Let us get away from the appalling falsity of the view that leads some people to think that any building which is useful and functional is bad and ought not to be permitted. A silo ought only to be stopped if someone tried to make an early English silo. There are idiots who might try, and unless we are given this Clause they could not be stopped.

If the Clause were omitted then it would be impossible under town planning schemes to convert a silo or farm into an ancient Tudor shop or something of that sort. That is what we want.

My hon. Friend speaks with great passion, but he is completely wrong. The silo may not yet be in existence. It is perfectly proper to erect a silo, and, if we are forbidden this Clause, anybody could put up a silo which my hon. Friend would feel most indignant about, and we could not stop him. If we are given this Clause it will enable us to stop him. What is being asked for is an exemption fox agricultural buildings such as is not enjoyed by any other class. I say that is not wise in the interest of agriculture. After all here we are adopting a recommendation of the Scott Committee. Whatever may be thought of the Scott Report no one will accuse it of being hostile to country interests or agriculture. Agriculturists will be asking us again and again to do this, that and the other thing which is recommended in the Scott Report, in the interests of agriculture. Are they now to say that the one recommendation which might slightly inconvenience them should be disregarded and that they should be given exemption. I do beg my hon. Friends to think again about this exemption. Why, it may be asked, do this in this Bill? One of the reasons is because we are making in this part of the Bill certain technical improvements in the general planning law. If hon. and gallant Gentlemen fear an administration of this Clause which is oppressive to farmers I can promise them it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. to see that no such oppressive administration takes place. But do not deny us the power we seek.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly address the Chair?

I apologise to the Committee. It is a natural tendency sometimes to face those to whom one has been speaking. It should be resisted. I must remain in ignorance of what their reactions are. I dare say that will be made clear at a later stage. I would say that it is in the interests of agriculture itself and of my hon. and gallant Friends who have spoken to preserve the countryside. The countryside we wish to preserve is not some museum piece but a countryside in which agriculture flourishes. If agriculture is to flourish it must, of course, be modern, and may, of course, have to produce buildings that are utterly different from the traditional buildings there have hitherto been in the countryside. That is true.

Let us hope so.

Let the buildings that are to be produced be as worthy of the 20th century as the existing farmhouses are of the 18th century, and the great centuries of our tradition. It does not mean that we desire in the least that farm buildings should be such as are feared by some hon. Members who have spoken against this Clause. This Clause does nothing but remove a disability of the planning authorities by removing an exemption, the removal of which has been recommended by a Committee extremely friendly to farmers. It does not mean that any farm buildings proposed to be erected could be finally stopped by any planning authority. My right hon. Friend might give a direction, or he can take over the application himself under his statutory powers, but if in some part of the country loved by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, some farmer proposed to do something that was thought to be outrageous, we could not stop him unless we have this Clause. I beg those who imagine they are opposing this Clause in the interests of agriculture to think again before they claim an exemption for their property alone. It is the intention to use the planning law to preserve the countryside they love. It may be threatened by dangers which, without this Clause, we could not stop. But we are determined to see that the legitimate interests of the farmers and agriculture are given proper consideration.

I am very sorry, especially upon this point, to appear to disagree with my hon. Friends here, because I live and farm in the beautiful countryside of Surrey. I have grown to love it with great intensity, and I would be the very last to wish that pettifogging town planning committees should venture to interfere with the age-long beauty that has been handed down to us there. Still more would I resent any additional burden being put upon my fellow farmers' shoulders, but I hope my hon. Friends will think again about this. The industry for which we are all speaking here, agriculture, will not win after the war that security and stability which we all desire unless it retains throughout the sympathy and active support of the great urban populations of this land. That is a plain statement which everyone accepts. What is to be the reaction of the great 70 per cent. of the population if agriculture is to ask, as we seem to be asking this afternoon, for exemption from a law which all of us agree is needed for the country as a whole? What sort of case have we to put up against townspeople if we seek exemption for something we would impose upon them? I am sure it is not in the interests of agriculture to press this case to-day.

My hon. Friends have said rightly that, when one goes through the countryside it is on the whole the wayside advertisements to which one objects, not the farms. That is true, but surely my hon. Friends do not say that there are not in each of their districts farm buildings being put up now that are a real disgrace to this day and generation? Next to my own home in Surrey I could take the Committee to the most appalling scene, the result of a local farmer being bereft of any sense of the beauty and culture of his countryside, concerned only with getting something up cheaply, getting a quick profit and running away. That kind of thing should not be allowed, and it is abundantly right that some authority should have the power to prevent it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is right in asking for this Clause, but it all depends how it is worked. I think the promise made, and reiterated in such very strong language, by the Parliamentary Secretary that this Clause would be operated with the greatest possible discretion is a promise of considerable value. I would have liked him to develop his statement that nothing silly would be done. I would like to have seen, if not machinery, some provision in this Clause to make us satisfied that these silly things will not be done by silly town planning committees. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but it is up to him to give us the confidence we want.

Supposing a war agricultural executive committee say to me "You have got to plough up a good deal more land" and I require to buy another tractor, and that means I must put up a building to house it, have I now to go to. the Minister of Town and Country Planning before I can put up that building, because I very much fear, if that is the case, the cultivation will not take place?

I rise to add to the appeals that have been made to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause, or, at least, to help us in some way if he can. I feel that we have a special case here, because the matter has already been under consideration in past legislation, and Parliament has exempted agricultural buildings from the scheme of these town and country planning arrangements. Further, the scope of the Bill is not, to my mind, intended to deal with this particular matter. The primary objects of the Bill are to deal with devastated areas and slum clearance; not to deal with individual isolated buildings, which can only be seen by, and can only affect, the owner or the tenant of the land. These buildings do not impinge upon the general harmony of the countryside or upon the convenience or inconvenience of the public. This is a case in which it would be most inappropriate for the terms of this very wide piece of legislation to be applied.

I heartily agree with my hon. Friend who has just asked a question with regard to such a matter as housing, or covering, for agricultural tractors. But that is not an isolated case. The same thing is continually occurring on farms, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well. A tenant may say, "Do you mind if I put up a covering or some sort or other"—it happened to me last week—"to house paraffin containers, or some sort of shed which is urgently wanted because my supply of pig styes is exhausted, and I have another sow farrowing?" When that happens, you cannot tell the sow to wait until you have applied to the local authority for permission to erect a shed. I beg the Government to reconsider this matter, to see if they cannot limit it to apply to buildings, either adjacent—or I believe the appropriate word now is "contiguous"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Both."]—yes, adjacent or contiguous to a high road, or not in excess of a certain value. I beg the Minister to allow farmers to carry on their industry without the restriction that would be placed upon them by this Clause.

So much has already been said that I do not want to say much more, but I would like, on behalf of the farmers, to see this Clause withdrawn. Do not let it be thought that the farmers generally want to see a lot of undesirable buildings erected. They are as anxious to see the countryside preserved as anybody is. But we want to see that the interests of the country and of the nation are not impeded. The town-planning authorities in many cases do not know the type of buildings that are required. As a result of decisions of the agricultural executive committee, the type of farming in a district may change, and that may necessitate a change in the type of buildings. I add my plea that the Minister should withdraw this provision, and not unnecessarily hamper the farming industry.

I cannot see anything dreadful in wanting a continuance of a policy which has existed for some time without any dreadful consequences. It seemed to me that the first reason why the Parliamentary Secretary desired to have this Clause was for the sake of administrative tidiness, in order that the Government might say that everything upon every acre of the whole country was planned, from John o' Groats to Land's End, and in much the same way as our lives are shortly to be planned, from the cradle to the grave. That argument does not appeal to me. I do not think that the farmer should be put to the great amount of trouble and expense that will be involved for the sake of administrative tidiness. The other reason was an aesthetic one. I do not think we ought to allow the planning authorities to indulge their taste, fancy, and desire at considerable expense to the agricultural community. The planning authority may, for instance, dislike the look of Dutch barns. Personally, I like the look of Dutch barns; but I can imagine that some people may not. Suppose that, because of a prejudice of that kind, they make difficulties. It is all very well to say that the farmer can appeal. That would result in delay and worry—I would stress the word "worry." The farmers have enough anxiety already, and I do not think we ought to do anything to increase it. I do not think that this Clause ought to be passed.

I listened with great care to the strong appeal made by the Parliamentary Secretary. As he himself observed, it is possible to feel strongly and yet to be wrong. I feel strongly that he himself is wrong, for reasons which I will adduce, and which I hope will convince him of his error. He spun a pretty web for the agricultural fly, but I hope that the Committee will destroy it before the end of the day. Let us see what the proposition is. First, to complete the planning picture, we must bring in a little bit that was left out in 1932, so that planning can be applied to every single building in the whole of the British Isles. That would make a perfect planner's picture. One asks oneself, Has any damage been sustained by this omission from the 1932 Act? Is it not the case that people who live in the towns go out to look at the beauties of the country and the beauties of the villages, and that some of our farm buildings are, indeed, admirable? If the farming industry is prosperous, the buildings will be all right, and if it is not prosperous, no planning will cause proper buildings to be put up. The real point is this. Can we trust those who know the country, and who love the country, not to abuse it? In this country we have done so for many years, without sustaining any injury. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) makes one of his normal interjections, without carrying the argument one way or the other.

The hon. Member has never lived in Scotland.

That remark is not relevant, and I do not propose to deal with it. One of the consequences of applying this planning to agriculture must be that farmers will have to apply to yet more people before they can do anything on their farms. We had a discussion not long ago about what the farmer would have to do before he put up a dairy. I do not want to remind the Committee—I do not suppose I should be in Order—of what was said in the Debate on the Milk and Dairies Bill. We are making it more difficult for the farmer to carry on his industry. It seems to me that, before we place this additional burden on farmers and on those who live in the country, we ought to be satisfied that this omission from the 1932 Act indeed endangers the beauty of the countryside. I do not think that the case has been made out by anyone. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, whose lave of the country is as great as mine, can safely leave it to agriculturists to do their best for what has been passed down from generation to generation.

I find myself in the distressing position of being completely convinced by the Parliamentary Secretary's answer. I have listened to the greater part of the arguments that have been used in the discussion on this Amendment, and I do not think that any good case has been made out for the exclusion of just one industry among all the industries of this country. I represent an industrial town, but I live in the country, and I do not think that other parts of the country are any different from mine, where we have seen buildings put up by small farmers who are not able to afford to put up anything better. That is largely the result of the policy of past Governments in respect of agriculture, but one hopes that post-war Governments will be a great deal wiser than their predecessors. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) used a very convincing argument when he told us of the difficulties a farmer would be in when his sow suddenly began to farrow and he had no accommodation for her, because one knows enough about the laws of nature to realise that sows do not do these things unexpectedly; and a wise farmer will make provision for a lady in that interesting condition.

My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the gestation period of a sow is con- siderably less than that of a local authority.

I think that farmers have taken steps in the past to deal with such a situation before the gestation period commenced. The effect of bringing agriculture into line with every other industry may be to make manufacturers mass produce cheap buildings which come within town-planning regulations—and the fact that they would be cheap does not necessarily imply unpleasantness—so that these cheap buildings could be made available to farmers. I do, therefore, with very great regret, inform the Committee that I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.

If an unreasonable authority will not allow the buildings this will mean an enormous amount of work for the farmer. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) shows very great knowledge of how agriculture is carried on. If it is a wet day, and if a good farmer is using his men to the best purpose, he will probably tell them that he wants a new shed built for tools or some other purpose, and his men will put up the shed. Under this Clause he cannot do that. He scratches his head and says "No, I have got to go to the town planning authority." He cannot even begin the work, because it might be turned down. I think we ought to take into consideration, in discussing this Clause, the day-to-day work on the farm.

I want to respond to one question. First, may I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) for supporting me? In what we desire for the countryside I have no difference whatever with the various hon. Members who want to delete this Clause. I simply want, and I am determined, that my Ministry shall not be denied the power of preventing what it will want to prevent. One hon. Member said that farm buildings would only concern the tenant of the farm. Cannot he conceive a farm on the South Downs which if of really horrible design might affect some of the most beautiful country in England? It is not true that, if there is such an evil, its effect will be so limited. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham- Buller) asks if there had been any deplorable results of the exemption enjoyed by these buildings since 1932. The Scott Committee thought there had been, and I could probably take my hon. Friend round a good many parts of the country where I could find at least one example which might convince him. Having said that, let me try to relieve him of one source of anxiety.

I think it was the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) who put the case of some necessary sheds and asked if that would involve an application either to the local planning authority or the Minister. Perhaps I should have mentioned before, and I mention it now, that there is what is called a General Interim Development Order, which authorises certain classes of buildings for which no application need be made. I have little doubt that it would be possible for my right hon. Friend, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, to find a standard design for many kinds of agricultural buildings in common use which can be scheduled to the Interim Development Order and which can then be put up without application to anybody. The design of these buildings would be carefully considered.

This is provided for under the general powers we already possess under the law, and that is what I had in mind when I spoke of the reasonable administration of this matter in the interests of agriculture. I give the most clear undertaking that this Clause will be so administered. Exemption would not change the position of the ordinary farmer from what it will be under this Clause, if properly administered, but the Clause will meet the case where somebody acquires a farm who has not been brought up in the traditions of the countryside, who may not share many of the ideas represented in the speeches made, and who wants to do something that every hon. Member who has spoken would want to stop. If that should happen, if an outrage occurs, then, if we have this Clause, hon. Members can rightly come and blame the Minister of Town and Country Planning. If they demand the exemption of agricultural buildings altogether, then it will be impossible for us to stop such an outrage, however much hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee would desire it. I hope I have relieved some of the anxieties which have been expressed.

Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Minister— [Interruption.]

I spoke of the General Interim Development Order. The Order is revised from time to time and a new one is substituted. Of course, I give the assurance that the Minister will consult with the Minister of Agriculture. Indeed, this Clause would not have been brought in without consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, and it is certainly the intention, just as much in the interests of the Minister of Town and Country Planning as of the farmer himself, that we should not demand that application for permission should be made when it is perfectly obvious that such permission should be granted and everybody will be treated accordingly. It will be possible to draw up standard designs for many kinds of agricultural buildings in common use and schedule them in the Order, thus relieving farmers of their really misplaced anxiety if this Clause comes into operation.

Will my hon. Friend have a provision inserted in the Bill on Report stage that, before a planning authority can carry out these things, the Minister of Agriculture must be consulted on these buildings?

That really would not be a proper Amendment, but I am only saying the obvious when I say that no Minister, of whatever persuasion, could possibly draw up a list of permitted agricultural buildings without consulting the Minister of Agriculture. I give the assurance, but I hope no hon. Members will ask that it should be inserted in the Bill. With what I have said I ask hon. Members to realise that we have the interests of agriculture at heart and that they should give us this Clause without further delay.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. What does he mean by a right of appeal to the Minister? I do not know what he means by that.

I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that hon. Members who have spoken were acquainted with the general planning law on this subject. [Interruption.]

My hon. Friend should not be rude about it.

I am sorry if in the thought of the Committee I was rude, but I can say it was the last thing which I intended. There are two possibilities. The first possibility is that the building which the farmer wishes to erect is a building which, under the Schedule of the General Interim Development Order, can be built without anybody's consent being obtained. In that case, no application to the local planning authority or interim development authority will be required. If the building is not exempt in that manner, then an application will be required. That application will have to come, unless other steps are taken, to the planning authority. If the planning authority tells the applicant, "No, you must not erect that building," then the farmer will have the right of appeal to the Minister, and that is the right of appeal to which I referred. But we can ourselves take over any class of application. Supposing there were some new development of agriculture which rendered desirable some particular development. It would be quite possible for the Minister to say that all such applications must go direct to him. I am not saying that we shall do that, but we have the power. I hope I have made the matter clear.

Perhaps I may be permitted to say a word. I was unfortunately detained in another place while most of the discussion went on. I can appreciate the anxiety of hon. Members on all sides of the Committee.

Only one side.

I think the anxiety is generally shared, but I assure the Committee that there is no intention to work this Clause to the detriment of agriculture. That is the point which everyone must have in mind, and, when one considers the immense contribution which the slow and steady growth of agriculture through the ages has made to the beauty of the English landscape, far from the interests of agriculture and the desire to rebuild our country beautifully being at variance, the agricultural industry has been one of the most powerful supports and props of all the forces making for the beauty of our land. The beauty of England is not entirely natural; a great deal of it is man-made, and it is our desire to support the activities of all those who carry on this industry and preserve the beauty of England.

The Committee have, no doubt, been reminded of the Report of Mr. Justice Scott's Committee, which has gone into this matter in considerable detail. No one, whatever his predilections, could accuse that Report of any lack of knowledge of, or sympathy with, the agricultural industry. Indeed, the whole Report, from the first to the last of its pages, breathes an intense love of the countryside and a desire that its beauty shall not be imperilled, realising, as it does, that a stable and prosperous agriculture is necessary for the attainment of that object. I should like to assure the House that, in the administration of this matter, we shall take care to avoid all pettifogging restrictions upon those operations which every farmer must undertake in order to carry on his great and ancient industry, while at the same time seeking to preserve for the great bulk of the agricultural community who desire to retain the beauty of their land powers which will enable them to invoke authority against occasional transgressors.

Will the Minister not ask those hon. Members who are doubtful about planning to come and see the Plymouth plan and see how it works in with the Ministry of Agriculture? One of the best points of the plan is that the agricultural community is the basis of the plan.

I think there is this in what the Noble Lady says—that, in so far as plans have been made, and Plymouth is a case in point, the planners have been sedulous to preserve the beauty of the countryside, recognising that that beauty is a pressing urban interest.

2.30 p.m.

I hope that the Committee will accept that assurance and the further assurance that the decision to ask the Committee to include agriculture within the provisions was not reached without any reference to agriculture. The Government thought that the time had come to proceed with this recommendation of the Scott Report. I have little else to say to the Committee on the subject and I hope, unless some hon. Member has a further question to ask, we may proceed to decide the matter.

Is the Minister aware that some of the local authorities and neighbouring bodies are not too keen on the Plymouth plan?

I can see that, and the Committee must not take what I have said to be any prejudging of the matter. I am sure that, as far as the agricultural aspect is concerned, which is the only matter in Order at this moment, the plan itself shows—I do not say that I approve of it in its entirety—the germ of the situation and what is the essential spirit. Many of these local authorities are not proceeding with reconstruction, with an entire disregard for this consideration.

Before we pass this Clause, I would like to ask the Minister a question. The following case might occur. A building may have been pulled down just before the war and then the whole area may have been blitzed. This Clause would give the owner of that building power to rebuild it on that existing site. I put down an Amendment to prevent that happening. It may be that I could not have understood the Clause perfectly, but I ask the Minister to say if my reading of it is correct.

I ought to answer the question of the hon. Member, as he attaches importance to it. The object of the Clause is really to secure that the owners of premises which are or have been destroyed during the war, and premises whose use has been interrupted during the war, do not lose those rights to which they would have been entitled under planning schemes in normal conditions. The existing planning code does give to owners of property certain rights either to continue the use of the property or to receive compensation in respect thereof, if the use itself is altered by the planning authority. It would be in accordance with the principles of justice that because a man's house, or building or property was destroyed by the war he should not thereby, by the act of the enemy, lose at once his house or property and his existing legal rights to compensation.

The main purpose of the Bill, as the hon. Member knows, is to provide a speedy power of acquisition to the local authorities for purchasing the land and then erecting upon a plan the proper buildings for a good community. If the local authority purchased the land on which this building was erected, they would be in a position to deal with it as full owners, having compensated the man. Actually in the reconstruction areas themselves the point would not arise because the ownership of the land would ex hypothesi have changed from the private owner to the public authority which owns it. It might be in isolated cases—indeed it might occur in a fairly numerous class of case—that a building was destroyed but the area, not being an area of extensive war damage, which it was the purpose of the Act to acquire, the man would be left with it upon his hands. Because its use has been obliterated, he should not thereby lose such rights of compensation that he would otherwise possess. It is in justice to these owners that the Clause is inserted.

Is the destruction only destruction by enemy action, or does it also apply to buildings that have been demolished with a view to being rebuilt by the owners of the premises?

No, the matter is confined to two circumstances arising out of the war. It is not entirely war damage that is in point, but the use of the building to which the owner was entitled might have been interrupted by the circumstances arising out of the war, and if either of these two conditions are present, it would be Within the Clause. It is either war damage or interruption of use arising out of war circumstances.

I beg to move, in page 43, line 19, at end, insert:

"(3) Where, in exercise of any such power as aforesaid, the responsible authority have, at any time after the commencement of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and before the commencement of this Act, purported to grant permission for any development so as to remain in force for a specified period, the provisions of the last preceding subsection shall apply as if the permission had been granted under this section."

This Clause enables the responsible authorities under operative planning schemes to grant temporary permissions where a permanent condition would be contrary to the scheme, but where development is necessary by reason of war circumstances. There are some areas in this country in which planning schemes are in statutory operation and the exigencies of war have necessitated the erection of buildings, for the conduct of the war, and other uses of the building which are contrary to the scheme itself. That, from the planning point of view, we must all deplore. The war has brought great ravages upon the beauty of the country as well as in other respects, but no price is too great for victory and we have had to acquiesce reluctantly in local authorities being forced to depart from the strict provisions of the scheme for war purposes. The Urban District Councils Association represented to us that we ought also to validate temporary conditions which responsible authorities have purported to give, and that is the purpose of the Amendment. If an authority has acted in good faith, even contrary to its own statutory scheme, and has done that for reasons of war purposes, this provision ought to be put in, putting the matter on a strict legal basis.

I beg to move, in page 43, line 28, to leave out "exercise," and to insert "discharge."

This is mainly a drafting Amendment. It is thought to be more appropriate to put in the word "discharge," instead of the word "exercise," in order to make a little point clear, namely, that a local planning authority may borrow to finance the purchase of land which they are required to purchase under Clause 27. As Clause 38 is drafted it might be argued that the provision in Clause 27, which is forced upon the authority, is not covered. While the main structure of the Bill is to empower local authorities to borrow money, in Clause 27 they are forced to do it, and it is thought right to bring this Clause into line as well.

I beg to move, in page 43, line 29, to leave out "the powers conferred on them by," and to insert "their functions under."

This, again, is a drafting Amendment to make a certain point clear. It arises out of what I have previously said and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

I beg to move, in page 44, line 18, after "times," to insert:

"after giving not less than forty-eight hours' notice to the person having custody of the land and on production of his authority if required."

I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that not less than 48 hours' notice should be given to the person having custody of the land before an individual appears upon it to make inspection or to take particulars of any kind.

I will ask my right hon. Friend to look with sympathy upon this Amendment, because there is going to be a very great invasion under this Bill, when it is passed, of people's homes and their land. I daresay my hon. Friends above the Gangway may regard that as a desirable state of things, but I am sure the majority of the country does not. The majority of our people still like to look upon their homes as their own. Since this war has started I am sure my hon. Friends above the Gangway must have been delighted about the number of people who could barge in through the front door of a home at any time they like and make inspection from the attic to the cellar—

rose—

Of course, in the hon. Lady's house there are so many rooms and the quarters are so palatial that it may take a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]In the majority of homes, however, the question of inspection is extremely irritating, and even if people only have a few rooms, they do not want officials barging in at all times of the day. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will take some steps to see that the land and the homes of the people are not unnecessarily invaded under the provisions of this Bill.

I think that the utmost powers must be given to local authorities and to valuation officers in order to ensure that the homes of the people are actually provided and protected. It is terrible to have to sit here and listen to hon. Members talking about the rights of people in their homes. The fact of the matter is that many people have not the right to their homes and that some of the homes in the countryside are not worth having a right to. I had a case brought to my notice this last week of a landlord turning a wife and child into the street, with her furniture and bedding, in pouring rain, while the husband is in Holland battling for the country and for the people, and on Sunday last the whole congregation walked out of the local church when this landlord entered, as a protest against his action. It is wrong to say that these people—

The hon. Gentleman is too far away from the Amendment. We are only concerned with whether 48 hours' notice will be inserted.

I was just going to say that the power given to the valuation officers does not require any Amendment. I am quite certain that these officers and other authorities will see to it that those who are affected get a fair opportunity of understanding what is happening and will give fair treatment. There is no question about that at all. There should be no more of this attempt to limit the responsibility of the local authorities and the valuation officers operating in blitzed areas.

This Clause deals with the power of entry for purposes of survey and valuation, and it is not a new provision in our law, but one that appears in a number of statutes where this process of valuation and survey is an essential part of the operation that has to be conducted. The Housing Act requires 24 hours notice to the owner and occupier by any person with the power of entry, which is half the time proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment. The reasons why we have not included such a period of notice in this Clause are, that it is a dilatory proceeding, and also a lot of the property with which we are dealing in this particular Bill, which will require to be surveyed and its value assessed, is already heavily war damaged and not occupied. In a vast number of cases, therefore, the actual process will be conducted upon premises where there is in fact nobody resident at all. As a matter of fact, I am told that the experience of valuation officers is that the recipients of such a visit are never in the least reluctant to grant them permission to enter and carry on their valuation.

It is not so in the case of the Ministry of Works.

I cannot speak for other Ministries but, taking the country by and large, we all have our duties to perform, and there is a readiness on the part of the ordinary citizens of the country to concede the right to a man to perform his duty and not to impede him in its performance. Already, in the provision we have said that he must come at all reasonable times—that is, it would be folly to allow him to come in the middle of the night or at some time when people would be unnecessarily disturbed by him. But perhaps that does not go quite far enough for my hon. and gallant Friend and there is the further safeguard that any man of sense would, of course, arrange a convenient time either by previous call or by telephone, because the survey could be much more expeditiously carried out if the tenant or occupier were in the house at the time so that he could be questioned on various matters.

That was the real problem. In very many cases, especially under the conditions he has described, the owner or occupier will not be resident, and 48 hours seems not unreasonable notice to give him time to be present at the inspection.

I appreciate the point, but I was saying that it is really in the interests of the valuation officer himself, unless he is to waste his labour by going at a time when the man he wants to see is out, to arrange such an appointment. I am not quite happy about the position. I think that there is substance in what I have said. I am a little baffled by the difficulty of serving a notice on people in premises which are in fact not occupied because they have been bombed out and so I cannot accept this Amendment. A similar difficulty was encountered in the War Damage Act, and there the words used are:

"provided that if the premises are occupied admission shall not be demanded as a right unless 24 hours' notice of intended entry has been given to the occupier."

That is, I think, a reasonable proposition, and if my hon. and gallant Friend would be content with something of that sort, I would be prepared to include a provision to that effect on the Report stage. There is one other point I would like to make, dealing with the latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, which requires the production of an inspecting officer's authority. I suppose that is to prevent an unauthorised person imposing upon a householder by pretending he is the valuation officer, whereas, in fact, he could spy out the land in order to carry out, a few nights later, a highly successful burglary. Common law takes care of that, because under it, any householder is entitled, has overriding authority, to forbid the entry of any man into his premises, and then the onus is upon the person who demands entry to show some authority. I therefore think that the second part of the Amendment does not require the precise legislative enactment.

I hope my right hon. Friend will look at the second part of this Amendment again, because there are so many people wandering about houses now demanding admittance, that there is a genuine prospect of a man in civilian clothes—not in uniform like the gas man—getting into a house, seeing its internal layout and then coming back a few nights later to do a good burglary. The ordinary housewife does not know that she can bang the door in anyone's face and demand his authority, and if the words "on production of his authority" were added to the Bill, I think it would be an added protection to the householder.

I will consider the matter again, although as I have already explained it is covered by the law as it stands. All these officers would be armed with identity cards but if my hon. Friends attach any importance to the matter I should be willing to consider a provision to that effect.

In view of what the Minister has said, which I greatly welcome, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 15, after "person", to insert:

"or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address."

This and other similar Amendments relate to the publication and service of notices. The authorities are required to deliver notice, or send it by pre-paid registered post to an address for service, if such an address has been given. It is further provided that an owner or occupier could leave an address for service, in his absence, of any notice under the Bill to which he may be entitled.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 31, to leave out "or being an occupier of land."

This Amendment is designed to simplify personal service of notice to an occupier of land. There is provided, at the same time, a safeguard which requires that the authority should call attention to the importance of the communication by a special marking.

I beg to move, in page 45, line 37, at the end, to add:

"or,

(g) where it is a notice or other document that should be served on or given to a person as being an occupier of land, by addressing it to him by the description of 'occupier' of the land (describing it) to which the notice or other document relates, and either posting it in a prepaid registered letter addressed as aforesaid and marked in such manner as may be prescribed for securing that it shall be plainly identifiable as a communication of importance or delivering it in a letter addressed and marked as aforesaid to some person on the land."

This is a consequential Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 7, at the end, to add:

"or, where no person is found on the land to whom it can be delivered, affixing it or a copy of it to some conspicuous part of the land."

The Amendment which has been moved on behalf of the Government provides for service of notice on an occupier of land by post, in cases where the owner cannot be found. Where he is known, or can be found, or has left an address, he will get the notice. This addition is intended to provide for the case in which the owner cannot be found, or he is not known, and the notice has to be sent to the occupier. A case may arise where there is no occupier, and my Amendment is to meet such a case. In such a case notice has to be served by fixing it, or a copy of it, on some conspicuous part of the land. There is already a precedent for notices being served in this manner. It is not a revolutionary change in the law and I therefore hope the Minister will accept it.

I have looked with sympathy at my hon. Friend's Amendment, but my present feeling is that it goes a little far because it proposes to allow service on an occupier, without previous inquiry as to his name and address, by fixing the notice on some conspicuous part of the land. The Government's proposal is that a document addressed to the occupier should be marked "important" so that it will, once it gets into the hands of anybody on the land, stand a good chance of reaching the occupier. The person to whom it is given will presumably be the occupier's servant or agent or someone who will know who he actually is. On the other hand, there is a case for saying that we have drawn the thing a little too tightly and that some provision ought to be made to meet the substance of the point the hon. Member has in view. We are all desiring the same thing and I hope he will withdraw his Amendment and allow us to look at the whole matter altogether.

Could the Minister consider some alteration in his Amendment to obviate a difficulty? It provides for the delivery of a letter to some person on the land. That provision might be legally complied with if the letter were delivered to some person casually present, who had no connection whatever with the owner or occupier.

I will certainly look at the point and see whether I can meet it, but I do not wish to put upon postmen the duty of cross-examining every person to whom they deliver a missive to see that he is the person he purports to be or that he is entitled in any way to receive it. But I will look at the whole matter again in the light of the hon. Member's suggestion.

I must offer a very considerable apology to the Committe for what must, at first sight, seem a most unwarrantable intrusion in the active and lively course of these Debates. I have not been able to listen to any of them but, of course, behind the scenes, in the preparation of this Measure, I have had over the last year continuous opportunities to acquaint myself, as far as possible, with the general flow of opinion on the controversial questions involved. I hope my apology will be accepted, because I thought it right at this moment to suggest a somewhat unexpected course which I think will be found, when it is carefully considered, helpful to our affairs in general, and also to particular matters which we have in hand and to which the House has devoted so much attention and thought. Above all, we need to preserve our sense of proportion. There are all sorts of matters which are extremely important upon which we might expend a great deal of energy and pugnacity, but at present we must keep our pugnacity, as far as possible, for export purposes. It seems to me that the Government would be much to blame if they so handled their public business as to bring about unnecessary, or at any rate premature, schisms and disputes between those who have only one object, namely, our safe and victorious emergence from our horrible struggle with Germany.

We must not imagine that the situation is not grave because we feel the assurance of victory. A great deal of blood is going to be shed in the next few months. Liberal, Conservative and Labour blood is going to be shed. It is my duty, above all, as far as I can, while pushing forward the great social Measures which have occupied this House, to make sure that no needless cause of difference is raised to an undue height or proportion. It would be a great pity to lose this Bill, but that would be better than having a disagreeable party dispute about it at present. We must have the Bill because the local authorities have to be many months ahead in their planning. Our towns have been devastated—almost obliterated. There are great areas of devastation, and the hideous spectacle of ruined homes meets the eye on every side. There must be intense thought among all those concerned in the different localities directed upon the rebuilding of the houses which have been shattered and, of course, upon casting the new buildings into a form most likely to be attractive to future generations and respected by those who watch our work. We must have the Bill. I could not think it would be right to lose it. But I would rather lose the Bill than get into a somewhat premature squabble about particular points. We have to recognise the limitations within which we have to work under the immense outside pressure of this great war. The appointed day on which the Bill comes into operation must be a good many months hence. Whatever work is done, however energetic, it may be seven, eight or nine months hence before the appointed day can actually be decreed. So I am advised, and others are here to argue points of detail.

3.15 p.m.

I do not want to hamper the rapid passage of this Bill, upon which broad agreement has been reached except in certain quarters, by delaying it until the controversial questions connected with compensation have been settled. That is the point I was going to submit respectfully to the Committee. These compensation issues affect matters far wider than the Bill itself. There is no reason why the Bill should be delayed and hampered, and still less lost, for their sake. We have, at least, several months in hand before the appointed day in which we can deal with the compensation question as a matter by itself in another Bill. I am quite prepared to go into details on the point that the local authorities will be hampered in making their plans by the fact that the actual basis of compensation has not yet been settled. There is a considerable argument upon that, which my right hon. Friend, or the Leader of the House, will be ready to deploy. I am satisfied that, once this Bill is through without the compensation Clauses, an immense field of forward progress will be open to the local authorities in every part of the country. But it is clear that persistence on Clause 45—to which, Major Milner, I have all the time been endeavouring to come, and which I have now reached, thanks to the forbearance and indulgence of the Committee—persistence on Clauses 45 and 46 would cause a lot of heat which might all be avoided if more time and reflection were given. The word "time" can be used in two senses. There are the hours of the Sittings of the House, about which there may be arguments. I do not put it in that sense, but we have to sit the hours necessary to do our job. I mean "time" in the sense of reflection.

Several attractive suggestions have been made—some I have heard only this morning—which might have a very good chance of uniting us all on a practical work-a-day scheme, but I, as a very old Parliamentary hand, am always shy of adopting last-minute suggestions. I have again and again seen a Government adopt some last-minute suggestion or accept some very specious or even ingenious Amendment, and then, a few minutes or an hour later, some awkward gentleman gets up on a back bench and points out something that has been overlooked which is vital to the whole proposal. This is very bad for a Government. It is always bad for a Government to change its mind, yet it ought to do so from time to time, out of respect to the House of Commons and out of the influence made upon its collective mind by the Debates in the House of Commons. But what is still worse is to have to change your mind and then have to change it again. That is a double disadvantage and we must certainly avoid that. Therefore, I will not attempt to offer any last-minute solution.

What I venture to propose to the Committee—and I beg at this moment that the Committee will be indulgent to me because I have not been sharing with them the burden and heat of the day— is that we should drop Part II of the Bill, set the local authorities free to get on with their planning of the devastated areas without a day's delay, and that we bring in, in the course of the next few months, a Bill dealing with the compensation question by itself. This would give much the best chance of reaching an agreement under our present conditions of Coalition Government. However, I must make it clear that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that this Bill pass without Part 11, but that it shall, nevertheless, be inseparably linked with the compensation Measure which we will deal with as soon as our affairs render it convenient and possible. Words will be inserted in the place of Clauses 45 and 46 to make it clear that before the appointed day when this Bill can come into operation, other legislation must be passed—dealt with, of course, by the fullest process of Parliamentary examination and Debate—which deals with the question of compensation. I do not want this question of compensation fettered like a cannon-ball on to the legs of this Bill, which has to get on its path as soon as possible. We will come along behind and bring the other Bill along as fast as possible.

We do not meet here in the old forms of controversial struggle. The day may come when we shall, but we have to keep together in this crisis of the German war and we must not let the kind of matters which can ordinarily be fought out between parties get in our way. We must not let them impair the grandeur of our national unity, by which not only we, but countless people throughout the world, have been greatly benefited. In the preparation of this Bill and the preparatory work, very great concessions have been made by some of our Labour colleagues. There was the question of the standard, and the question of the ceiling, and so forth, in which the Minister of Labour himself took a very leading part for the sake of unity. A man is not to be ashamed who takes a part, for the sake of unity at this time, in favour of the standard, which, I am bound to say, was a very essential part of a square deal. There have been great concessions made by our Labour colleagues, but I feel sure that it is necessary now that more thought should be given and more perseverance should be forthcoming in trying to reach agreement on the matters which are in dispute and which have clearly been shown to be in dispute during the patient discussions which have taken place.

I say to the Committee frankly that, if I thought this was merely putting off an evil day or putting off a day of quarrel, I would rather drop the Bill, but I am sure that that would be detrimental to the needs which people have and which must be met. I do not think we should be justified in doing that. But if I saw no hope in reaching any solution in this Parliament I would rather drop the Bill. I do see a hope; I see more than a hope. I cannot believe that we have got over such enormous difficulties among ourselves and shown an iron front to the whole of the terrors of the world war, and that we are now going to be baffled by the different points of view which necessarily present themselves, when questions of compensation arise, and when the representatives of three parties have to try to agree upon them. I therefore ask the Committee to consent to the—

rose—

Might I be allowed to finish? Then the hon. Gentleman, who was not in his place when I began this talk—

Might I—

No.

I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman.

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is. Otherwise, why mention it?

I am not blaming the hon. Member at all.

I did not know the right hon. Gentleman was coming in.

The importance of the Business of this Committee is not affected by my presence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]Really, I am not going to have flattery from this quarter. I am trying to talk this matter over in a very friendly manner.

rose—

Sit down.

I am finishing now. In an inconceivably short space of time, I shall be seated and the hon. Gen- tleman, if he should catch the Chairman's eye, will then be able to fall upon me with all his pent-up ferocity. For the moment, I just wish to say that I should like the Committee to consent to the omission of these two Clauses, to let the local authorities get on with the work of planning and let us see whether we can, by taking further thought, produce, with good will and perseverance, an overtaking, or at the very worst an intercepting, solution, in the shape of a separate Bill which will be satisfactory to the House.

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, might I ask him whether any intimation was conveyed to the Cabinet that he was going to make this statement to-day, because until the last moment there was no Labour Party Minister on that Front Bench? Now the Home Secretary has arrived. The right hon. Gentleman made certain references to the Minister of Labour.

The hon. Gentleman said he was raising a point of Order.

I did no such thing. I did not say "On a point of Order." I said that I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he sat down, whether any intimation was conveyed to the Cabinet that he was going to make this statement and secondly, whether he had received the permission of the Cabinet to single out the Minister of Labour in a special reference to differences within the Cabinet.

I came—after an interval, I must frankly confess, for physical refreshment—straight from the Cabinet to the Committee to make this statement, and to express their wishes and their views. I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour and I look at this matter at the present moment, and this solution—reserving all the natural differences which exist between us on so many matters but proclaiming at the same time all the associations that we have in common—in entire agreement.

On a point of Order. I am put in rather a difficulty because I am not certain in my own mind whether we are discussing the question that Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill, or whether there is a Motion to re- port Progress or whether, alternatively, we are having a free Debate without any Motion before the Committee.

The Question before the Committee is "That Clause 45 stand part of the Bill," and it was to that Question the Prime Minister addressed himself.

Further to my point of Order. I suggest that if this discussion is to become general we ought to have a wider Motion.

On that point of Order. When the Prime Minister comes in, whether in peace or in war, we always show him a great deal of toleration. On this occasion, we have not confined ourselves to discussing the issue whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill but have discussed the whole Bill in its linking up with the ramifications of finance, as well as Cabinet decisions. Really, that is not in Order on this Motion. We have discussed other Clauses as well as Clause 45. Would it not be better to put the discussion in proper form by some other Motion? Now that we have heard the Prime Minister, hon. Members must be allowed to make their speeches and I suggest that a better Motion be put before the Committee.

Further to that point of Order. Is it not the case that we were getting on very well in this Committee until the Prime Minister came in and suggested that we should drop Clauses 45, 46 and 47?

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I do so to give the Committee an opportunity to put matters in Order.

I have considered the matter, and I cannot accept the Motion. The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Hon. Members have to be given the greatest possible opportunity of saying what they want to say on the Clause, but they would be limited if they had to speak on a Motion to report Progress. The Prime Minister, as I understood him, urged reasons why the Government did not wish Clause 45, and it may be Clauses 46 and 17, to stand part of the Bill. I assume that the Government will vote against Clause 45 standing part of the Bill.

In reply to an interruption of mine, the Prime Minister said that it ought not to be regarded as out of Order for the Prime Minister to intervene in Debate. My submission is that because he is Prime Minister he has been permitted to raise a number of matters in Committee which are entirely irelevant to Clause 45. May I respectfully suggest, Major Milner, that in your own statement, when you referred to subsequent Clauses, you showed the irrelevance of the speech made by the Prime Minister on Clause 45, and that therefore the Prime Minister, if he wished to put a new position before the Committee, should have moved to report Progress? The embarrassment to which he has called attention is quite obviously not in the Committee at all, but is embarrassment within the Government itself. We ought to move to report Progress in order to consider the situation which he has laid before the Committee. I have certain observations to make on what he has said.

The Committee is taking the ordinary course in considering the Question whether Clause 45 should stand part of the Bill, and the Prime Minister's intervention was perfectly in Order.

I do not wish in any way to intervene in the struggle between the Prime Minister and his more enthusiastic followers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"]One is the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I am not concerned with that quarrel. May I put a point to you, Major Milner? You said that the Prime Minister had dealt with Clause 45, on the Question which you had put from the Chair without calling any of the Amendments. Subsequently, you referred to the fact that the Prime Minister had made reference to Clauses 46 and 47. My question is whether we are to depart from the usual procedure in a way which I have never yet seen in Committee and, on the proposal that Clause 45 stand part of the Bill, be allowed to discuss Clauses 46 and 47? That is what you have said.

The Question whether Clauses 46 and 47 should stand part of the Bill will, in the ordinary course, be put to the Committee. We are now dealing with Clause 45, and the Committee will have to take a decision thereon, but that issue is, of course, related to Clauses 46 and 47.

Will you allow us, Major Milner, in debating whether Clause 45 stand part of the Bill, to refer to Clauses 46 and 47? If you give us that latitude it is not in accordance with procedure.

I cannot, of course, commit myself in advance. The question of compensation is dealt with in these three Clauses, which are largely interdependent, and it may be that hon. Members may have a very wide range.

We can remember what happened on the Education Bill. Is it not possible for us to jump to Clause 48, and carry on as we were carrying on, and for those concerned to have a discussion with the Prime Minister in one of the rooms outside about an arrangement in connection with this difficulty which has arisen? There is no reason why the matter should be dealt with in the way suggested.

That is not a matter for me.

Am I to understand that this is the position, that while the Prime Minister may discuss the merits of Clauses 45, 46 and 47, and national unity, we may only discuss Clause 45 and leave out Clauses 46 and 47?

On a point of Order. I submit that I did not discuss the merits. I carefully avoided that. All I discussed was the propriety of dealing with the matter at this moment, and all my remarks were in Order on the Question "That the Clause stand part."

I have no desire to enter into the discussion as to the merits of the particular form of Debate we should have. I prefer to deal with the position put by the Prime Minister. I have, of course, listened with very great attention, and if I may say so, with sympathetic attention, to what he has put before us. I appreciate the large background on which he sees the Debate on this Clause, and I appreciate the difficulties of the Government in proceeding with the matter today. I hope that the Prime Minister will equally appreciate the difficulty in which he is putting the Committee. It would have been much more fortunate if it had been possible for the Government to have foreseen this position a little earlier. This Bill has been before the House for some time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]If hon. Members would not talk they would not have the least difficulty in hearing what I am saying. I was observing that it would have been more fortunate if the Government could have foreseen this position a little earlier, when I think the Committee could have resolved it without some of the heat which has been engendered to-day. I am not making a complaint. I know perfectly well that storms sometimes blow up in our Chamber rather rapidly, and the Prime Minister, as a good mariner, has scented the storm and has been, rather late in the day, trying to meet it. I appreciate what the Prime Minister said, that it is desirable before we enter upon a severe conflict, that a little time should be given for reflection, and that there is some ground for suggesting we should not discuss this Clause at this moment, but if the Committee are being asked to postpone this Clause and others—

Not indefinitely.

I think the proposal of the Prime Minister is more indefinite than it ought to be. The only promise I heard the Prime Minister give was that these Clauses would be introduced in another Bill before the appointed day. That sounds like a fairly definite promise, but inasmuch as the appointed day is not as yet appointed, and it is for the Government to say when they will appoint it, it is trying to fix something in terms of another thing which is equally unfixed.

I made another statement which is very important, and which I gathered hon. Members on both sides would be likely to attach importance to, namely, that we shall insert words now, in this Bill, words which will make it clear that the appointed day cannot be reached until the overtaking Bill dealing with compensation has been passed.

I have said that I quite appreciate the Prime Minister has given us a specific promise that the new Bill will be introduced before the appointed day.

It is not a promise. A promise is one thing. A statutory enactment is another, and it is a statutory enactment that I propose.

I am afraid the Prime Minister has missed my point. I regard the promise of the Prime Minister as a very binding thing, and I should not have questioned it. If he likes to put it more strongly and to say that he will put it in the Statute and that makes it stronger, it is for him to say that and not for me. Even so the appointed day is still in the future and unfixed. If this further Bill is to be in terms of a date still undecided it really does not amount to very much, because this new Bill can be postponed, and those who want town and country planning to proceed want the Bill not in the indefinite future but at the very earliest possible moment.

What the Prime Minister is asking us to do is to carry this Bill into law with one of its essential Clauses eviscerated. It is rather as if, when a dramatic society decided to read the play "Hamlet," they were to suggest that the part of Hamlet would be temporarily left out and could be introduced later on. The Prime Minister himself used, at the beginning of his discourse, the phrase that his intervention would seem perhaps to be an act of unwarrantable intrusion. But it seems to me that what he is proposing is an act of unwarrantable extrusion, because really the Town and Country Planning Bill without these compensation Clauses has no real content, and cannot be operated. Therefore I suggest to the Committee and to the Prime Minister that if he wants us to agree to putting off these Clauses he should not put them off into a subsequent Bill that will not be enacted this Session, but should put them off to a later stage of this Session while we have this Biil still before us. I can quite understand what the Prime Minister says about the undesirability of a hasty introduction of some particular proposal that the Government have vamped up at the last moment which they hope will satisfy and which they find, when they come to look at it a little more closely, will not work and cannot meet the convenience of the House. I have fallen into that trap myself as a Member of the Government, and I know quite well how very unpleasant it may subsequently prove. But this House is accustomed to act fairly promptly.

3.45 P.m.

This is not a new matter: all our minds have been upon this question of compensation for a considerable time. We are going to have the Report stage of this Bill next Thursday, which is six days ahead. Although I am aware that a suitable Clause could not be introduced on the Report stage, it is not an unheard-of procedure to recommit a Bill. We could then have suitable Clauses introduced, in five or six days, which might meet the wishes of the Committee and find a passage into law. I quite realise that if the Clauses had to be carefully thought out by the Cabinet and put down on the Order Paper, that might not give adequate time for Members to study them and come to a decision. But the Prime Minister knows that there are various means by which Members of this House can be invited to consider matters which have not been put on the Order Paper. He will not have forgotten that a very distinguished colleague of his, Sir Kingsley Wood, achieved some of his greatest Parliamentary successes by inviting Members to meet him, to hear what he had to say, and then getting a consensus of opinion. In consequence of that he carried much legislation through this House. A Measure very closely allied to this, the War Damage Act, was carried through in that way. It was done, one might almost say, off the record, but it was all brought to this House, and everything was perfectly in order. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that something of that sort might be done on this occasion. I see no difficulty in the Government formulating a scheme in the next two or three days. I am not suggesting that they should be unduly hurried. They could put it to both sides of the House, who could consult with the Minister.

Greatly daring, I am going to make a suggestion on those lines: it may not accord with the views of all Members behind me. We want this Bill carried. We do not want to be unreasonable; at the same time, we want certain main principles preserved; and so long as the main principle, of the 1939 ceiling for the price of the land, is preserved, we are prepared to have an open mind on a higher ceiling of a definite kind for the buildings. I think that that is a very fair suggestion to make. I make it with some trepidation, because it may not commend itself to all my hon. Friends; but I know how the minds of my hon. Friends are working, and I think that if there is quite clearly a definite limit to the price, even so far as the buildings are concerned, some compromise acceptable to the Committee might be reached along those lines. I hope that the olive branch which I throw out, representing some of those who have taken an active part on this Bill, will meet with some gesture from the other side which will enable us to come to some form of agreement.

In my final words, I would again put over the main point. I quite appreciate the need for some postponement. I am quite prepared to agree that we should not deal with these Clauses to-day: so far as the Committee stage is concerned, we should let them go. But I do not want the Bill to go on the Statute Book with these Clauses left out. That is an unheard of proposal. It would be disastrous. It would throw into an unknown future, to an unknown date, an essential part of the Bill. I hope the Prime Minister will not lightly turn down a suggestion that I have made in the spirit of good will, a suggestion that should commend itself to a Coalition Government. I think it would be quite possible, within a period of six days, to decide upon a form for these Clauses which would be acceptable in principle to most Members of this Committee, which the Government could get through and could incorporate in the main body of the Bill and which would enable this Bill to become an Act of Parliament, with full power, before this Session comes to an end.

When the Prime Minister, with the tremendous responsibilities that he has on his shoulders, comes down, at a time like this, and makes an appeal to the Committee, it is the general feeling that we should try to meet that appeal. I have not consulted him on the matter, but I would like to support the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Petrick-Lawrence). My right hon. Friend has talked about the play of "Hamlet" being produced without the gloomy Dane. If we pass this Bill without the financial Clauses, I would suggest that all that is left will be the ghost, because the Bill cannot operate without the necessary financial provisions. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman means not only that these Clauses should be postponed, but that the operation of this Bill should be postponed for some months. Many of us do not like this particular Clause. When I spoke on the Second Reading I concentrated my criticism on the financial provisions. Therefore, I am naturally enamoured of any proposal, to reconsider them. But this is really an urgent matter; the local authorities all over the country are insisting that they should get to work, and have these powers; and the Government should not postpone this particular Clause, this key of the Bill, for some months, but should accept what I consider to be the very reasonable proposition of my right hon. Friend. We should not let this Bill become an Act of Parliament with, if I may use the expression, "the guts taken out of it" because the financial provisions are not contained in it.