Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 410: debated on Thursday 19 April 1945

House of Commons

Thursday, April 19, 1945

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

Private Business

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Irwell Valley Water Board) Bill

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Irwell Valley Water Board," presented by Mr. Willink; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

Civil Contingencies Fund

Account ordered,

"of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1943, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1944, (2) the Distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[ Mr. Peake. ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Industrial Reconversion

Joint Production Committees

asked the Minister of Labour the names of the individual trade unions and employers' associations with which arrangements have, so far, been made for the continuation, in the post-war period, of joint production committees or similar machinery of collaboration.

:As I have already explained to my hon. Friend, this is a matter of day to day collaboration between employers and their workpeople, and I am, therefore, not in a position to give him the information for which he asks.

:Would it not be an example if the right hon. Gentleman could give specific instances of where agreement has been reached between individual trade unions and employers' associations?

:It might be an example, but really this is going on every day in almost every works in the country, and I cannot go to the trouble of recording every incident.

Wages (Regulation)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of threatened wage reductions in some branches of industry; and what steps he proposes to take to maintain wages at their present level, providing the people are agreeable to work.

:No, Sir. As regards the second part of the Question, it is hoped that joint voluntary machinery reinforced where necessary by action taken under the Wages Councils Act will provide adequate means of regulating wages.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman make it known to employers of labour that it would be disastrous to repeat the policy of the 1930's, and to adopt deflation?

Resettlement

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will place on sale the booklet on "Demobilisation and Resettlement" recently issued to members of the Forces.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a limited number of copies of the recently issued pamphlet on resettlement available for relatives of men serving in His Majesty's Forces.

:Yes, Sir. Copies of the booklet will be placed on sale by H.M. Stationery Office and booksellers as soon as the requirements of Service Departments have been met.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the supply of this excellent booklet is sufficient for the wives and other members of serving men's families, as they are very interested?

asked the Minister of Labour why the operation of the scheme of re-settlement grants is to be withheld until after the close of hostilities; and whether he will consider the establishment of this scheme forthwith in the interests of the many men already released from the forces.

:The Government decided on grounds of equity that this scheme should not be brought into general operation before releases from the Forces begin after the end of the war in Europe. I think, however, that special considerations arise in respect of disabled persons discharged from the Forces, and it has been decided that applications from them will be accepted in advance of the general operation of the scheme.

:While thanking the Minister for that reply and the concession that has been made, may I press him to consider a further concession, having regard to the fact that a number of men previously in small businesses and now released from the Forces are trying to re-establish themselves in business, but are hampered by having to wait for further facilities?

:I have to keep a general equity in these things. The man who is lucky enough to come out first may have a certain advantage; but I will look into the matter.

:Will my right hon. Friend grant facilities for men who get the £150 to take advice about the businesses they propose to buy?

:I have pleaded with organisations all over the country, chambers of commerce and everybody else, that these men should be able to get advice on whether there are proper opportunities for trade or whether they are being overcharged. Every facility exists to give them proper advice before they spend their money.

asked the Minister of Labour how many copies of the booklet, "Release and Resettlement," have been issued; and if all Services have had them.

:Copies of the booklet are being distributed as rapidly as they can be printed. The first supplies have already been dispatched to the Far East and priority in distribution is being given to other more distant theatres of war. Air transport is being used where this is practicable. Distribution in the Services will be completed in the course of the next few weeks.

:Is the Minister aware that the issue of this booklet is a splendid service not only to ex-Servicemen but to Members of Parliament who are likely to be asked many of the questions with which it deals?

:Is this booklet being issued to already discharged members of the Forces who have many pressing problems?

:They can get the booklet quite easily. If there is any difficulty, and my hon. Friend will let me know, I shall be glad to put it right.

:Will the Minister include some reference in future editions of the booklet to the issue of clothing coupons and to agricultural resettlement?

:We are issuing special leaflets on special subjects to special trades, and I do not think it is wise to add to the general booklet anything that applies to particular industries.

Women (Directed Employment)

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government will now bring the conscription of women to an end.

:There is now no compulsory call-up of women to the Forces but the demands still made upon me for the filling of vacancies for war work and other employment of great importance to the life of the community make it necessary for women to be required to take, or to continue in, employment. Relaxations in the current rules will continue to be made whenever the situation permits.

:Will the Minister not ease up in the case of women in the forties, in view of the very special contribution they have made to the war effort and the very great strain on them?

:We are easing up wherever possible, but we do not limit relaxation to age alone.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now consent to the release from directed employment of all young women who indicate their intention of training for teaching or nursing.

:All young women who indicate their intention of training for teaching or nursing are released, under present instructions, for such training unless their services in their existing employment are essential to the war effort.

:Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are women who are comparatively unemployed now? Could not their particular attention be drawn to the jobs they can do in this direction?

:We are constantly making every possible endeavour to get people into these professions. If people are unemployed, it is really their own fault if they do not enter them. We are always trying.

Directed Mineworkers (Release)

asked the Minister of Labour how and when after the end of the war in Europe will it be possible for youths, who have been directed to the mines under the ballot scheme, to obtain their release, if they desire it.

:I cannot at the moment add to my reply of 7th December to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) when I stated that these youths will not be retained compulsorily in the mines beyond the date at which they would have been released from the Forces if they had been called up.

:Can the Minister say whether his answer means that when these youths are released from the mines, they will no longer be liable for military service?

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether as soon as we get the boys back from the Forces, these youths will no longer be needed in the mines?

:I would not be too sure about that. I must emphasise that the Minister of Fuel and Power is responsible; the House should be aware that there is a grave danger of coal shortage at the end of this year, and I have to have regard to that in coming to my decisions regarding these boys and the return of the men from the Forces.

Closed Cotton Mills (Reopening)

asked the Minister of Labour the progress which has been made towards reopening the four mills which have been released from the operation of the Concentration Order in the cotton industry.

:These mills have reopened and in all cases output of yarn is expected by the end of this month. Progress in providing the additional workpeople required is generally satisfactory.

:Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is using all the resources at his disposal to overcome the serious labour difficulties in the clothing industry at the present time, and whether other mills can be reopened shortly?

:The latter part of the supplementary question is a matter for the Board of Trade. I am doing all I can. I have instituted experimental mills and all kinds of schemes to induce people to come back to the cotton industry in order that the trade may be restored.

Scientific and Technical Appointments (Advertisements)

asked the Minister of Labour what are the restrictions at present in force on the publication of advertisements for men and women possessing qualifications in various branches of science and technology; and whether, in view of the difficulties which they create for those who want to engage such staff, he will arrange for their amendment at an early opportunity.

:The restrictions in question are to be found mainly in the Undertakings (Restriction on Engagement) Order, as regards men, and in the Control of Engagement Orders, as regards women. As stated in the White Paper on the reallocation of man-power between civilian employments (Cmd. 6568), it is proposed after the end of the war in Europe to replace existing control of engagement provisions by a single Control of Engagement Order. The details of this Order are still under consideration, but it will clearly be necessary to have control over advertisements addressed to persons within the scope of the Order.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an employer is seriously handicapped when he cannot get highly qualified technical men in order to develop post-war trade?

:I realise the difficulty, but I would ask the House to remember that, in the early days of the war, industry was nearly brought to chaos by firms competing with each other with advertisements, the total result of which did not increase the national effort by a single unit of production.

:Is the Minister aware that advertisements of this description, when submitted to his Department for approval, are generally returned from his Department with the remark that the paper which is going to accept the advertisements will know more about it than his Department?

:I should have thought that was evidence of great discretion in my Department.

:When will these restrictions be removed? At the termination of the war in Europe?

:I could not say that. I must emphasise that this is one war, until we have finished with the Japs.

:Is not the indiscriminate scramble in advertisements of the early days of the war a good example of the free enterprise which hon. Members opposite wish to keep?

Building Apprenticeship and Training Scheme (South Wales)

asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken in South Wales to develop the Building Apprenticeship and Training Scheme; if any such training centres are to be established in South Wales; and, if so, in what town.

:I am proposing to open training centres in the Cardiff and Swansea districts for the training of men in the building trades. As regards the scheme for training apprentices on special building works it is for the local joint apprenticeship committee of the building industry to initiate such a scheme in its own locality. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works that no application has yet been received from any joint apprenticeship committee in South Wales, but a number of joint apprenticeship committees are known to be giving preliminary consideration to the scheme.

:While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he can allocate one man in his regional office to take charge of developments under the scheme, so that advantage can be taken of this excellent plan?

:Has the right hon. Gentleman carried out negotiations with the trade unions concerned, in order to ensure that there will not be any difficulty when training is complete in men entering a trade union?

:Yes, Sir. There is no difficulty at all about apprentices. What is needed in Wales is a little initiative on the part of the local committees. As to the training of men back from the Forces, I have entered into an agreement with the trade unions that they shall be admitted, as full craftsmen, after intensive training of 20 months.

Building Industry (Releases from Forces)

asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the improved war situation and with a view to hastening the repair of war damaged houses and the building of new ones, he will cause the early release from the Armed Forces of all officers and men who were formerly engaged in the building industry.

:It would not be possible to release all officers and men formerly employed in the building industry without seriously impairing the efficiency of the Armed Forces for the tasks they have still to perform. As many as can now be spared have already been released for bomb damage repairs and the housing programme, and the maximum number of building workers consistent with the principles of the Release Scheme will be included in the Class B releases after the end of the European war.

:In view of the terrible housing situation in many places, will the Minister be able to keep this suggestion specially in mind, or something similar?

:Is not my right hon. Friend aware that very few members of the Forces will be released under Class B?

:Yes; but I do not think that ought to be exaggerated. The main purpose of the Government is to get as many as possible out of Class A, and we must not whittle away the rights of the men in Class A for any other class.

Questions

Catering Wages Commission

asked the Minister of Labour how many recommendations he has now received from the Catering Wages Commission; and whether they have all been accepted.

:Recommendations have been received and wages boards have been established in the following cases:

:Would the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these recommendations are likely to come before the House?

Unemployed Women (Statistics)

asked the Minister of Labour how many women were unemployed at the latest date for which statistics are available; and of these how many had been unemployed for three months or more.

:At 15th January, 1945, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 22,327 women aged 18 and over registered at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain as wholly unemployed, 1,470 registered as temporarily suspended from work on the understanding that they were shortly to return to their former employment, and 48 registered as unemployed casual workers. The number Wholly unemployed is exclusive of 353 women who had been classified by interviewing panels as unsuitable for normal full-time employment. Statistics are not available showing the numbers on the registers who had been unemployed for three months or more.

:In view of the considerable number of women who are unemployed, if the Minister cannot find work for them within, say, three months, will he issue a direction that these women should be allowed to take such work as they desire without being directed to it?

Hankey Committee (Administrative Officers)

asked the Minister of Labour if he will explain the reason for the transfer of all the civil servants connected personally with the Hankey Committee on Further Education and Training.

:Presumably the hon. Member is referring to the four administrative officers who were associated with the work of the Hankey Committee. Of these, one has retired from the Ministry of Labour and has accepted a temporary post with the Ministry of National Insurance, one has received an appointment in a higher grade with U.N.R.R.A. and one has been promoted and transferred to other work. The fourth, who was a temporary officer, has accepted an appointment offered to him in the Ministry of Education.

:May I ask whether the Government are really enthusiastic about that report or whether it went further than they liked?

Victory Holidays

asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to see that employers of labour make arrangements for paid holidays on the same conditions as that decided with respect to Government factories and Government service on the cessation of hostilities with Germany.

:This is a matter for industrial agreement, and I regret I cannot add to the announcement which I made on 4th April last.

Education

Ministers of Religion (Teaching Posts)

asked the Minister of Education if he will take steps to withdraw the Regulation by which ministers of religion, though possessing the necessary qualifications, are at present excluded from holding teaching posts in grant-aided schools.

asked the Minister of Education whether he will explain the reason for the new draft Regulation 23; and whether he is prepared to modify it to permit the employment of Clerks in Holy Orders, or other ministers of religion, in grammar schools.

asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the distress and indignation caused by the new draft Regulation 23; and if he intends to withdraw or modify it.

:Under the code of regulations for public elementary schools no person who is a clerk in holy orders or the regular minister of a congregation has been eligible for employment as a full-time teacher. No similar provision has appeared in the regulations for secondary schools or other schools of higher education. In drafting the primary and secondary schools regulations my right hon. Friend has been actuated by a desire to maintain the existing position. Since, however, the regulation in its present form has given rise to some misunderstanding, he proposes to modify it so as to make it clear, as was the intention of the original draft, that clerks in holy orders or the regular ministers of any religious denomination may continue to be employed in grammar schools or other schools of a type in which their employment has hitherto been permitted. In the case of other schools my right hon. Friend proposes to provide that where the special circumstances of the case justify such a course, approval shall be given to their employment, on the application to the Minister of the persons with whom the appointment rests.

:Is there any reason why, in this enlightened age, there should be an act of intolerance in regard to a minister of religion teaching in any type of school? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the complete withdrawal of this out-of-date practice?

:I hope the hon. Gentleman will await the modified regulation before he makes up his mind as to its exact purport. It will be open to objection, or it can be prayed against in this House, after it has been drafted. I am bound to tell the hon. Member that there have been representations made to the Minister in the contrary sense to that implied in these Questions.

:Could my right hon. Friend say whether the revised regulation, which is about to be issued, will permit of the transfer of a clerk in holy orders from the staff of one grammar school to the staff of another, without the special permission of the Minister?

:Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Minister of Education that the religious tolerance which exists in this country at the moment, is the consequence of denominations not pressing their claims too hard, and that there may be difficulties if that course is pursued too much?

:I will see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's observation.

:In view of the supposed equality now for all secondary schools, would the right hon. Gentleman say how he would justify this being allowed in a grammar school and not in a county secondary school?

:I think if my hon. Friend will study the answer he will find that it will be possible, under the revised regulation, for one of these gentlemen to teach in a county secondary school.

Uncertificated Teachers (Courses)

asked the Minister of Education if he will arrange for the scheme of special one-year courses to be extended to include uncertificated teachers with less than five years' service.

:No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that those uncertificated teachers must take a course of not less than two years.

Grammar-School Holidays

asked the Minister of Education whether he will modify the new draft Regulation 20 so as to permit grammar schools which have a school session on Saturday mornings to have a longer period of holiday than the present Regulation authorises.

:In grammar schools which meet on Saturday morning it is not uncommon to allow an afternoon during the remainder of the week for recreation, and in such cases I do not think a case can be established for differential treatment in the length of school terms. My right hon. Friend would be reluctant so to frame the draft Regulations as to encourage an increased number of working periods during the week with consequent extra pressure on the pupils.

:Is there any reason why there should be a wooden uniformity in the matter of holidays all over the country? Why cannot there be discretion for secondary and grammar schools to have a different holiday where it suits the needs of the school?

:There is no wooden Regulation as to the length of holidays, but we have to ensure that in return for the Ministry's grant the pupils attend for a certain number of days during the year.

:It will mean a shortening of the existing holidays in many cases, will it not?

:As a teacher I have sometimes found it very difficult to defend the length of some holidays that have been granted to certain schools.

Teachers (Emergency Training)

asked the Minister of Education whether he can state the number of emergency training colleges for teachers which have been opened and the number of trainees attending them.

:Arrangements are being made to open three emergency training colleges in the course of next month, and the number of students accommodated will be about 350.

asked the Minister of Education how many applications have been received for the Teachers' Emergency Training Scheme.

:In view of these two answers—8,000 and 350—would my right hon. Friend press for the opening of more emergency colleges as soon as possible?

:Three will be opened during the current month, we are hoping to open an additional number at the beginning of next term and we are taking every step we possibly can to ensure that applicants shall be accommodated, as soon as they are released from national service.

Elementary and Secondary Schoolteachers

asked the Minister of Education what estimated number of teachers for elementary and secondary schools will be required for each of the next five years; what is the present shortage; how many have been released from the Forces for teaching or training; how many are now being trained; and whether he has conferred with the Minister of Labour and the Services Ministers to secure some release of suitable teachers or students for training immediately, and demobilisation of others directly the war against Germany is finished.

:It is estimated that 70,000 teachers, in addition to the number at present on the staff of primary and secondary schools, will be required to implement the reforms in the Education Act as well as making good the wastage due to the war. It is not possible to allocate this estimate between each of the next five years. It has not so far been possible to release men or women from the Services either for teaching or to train for teaching, except for a very small number of persons released to take up posts of special importance and responsibility. The number of students now attending Training Colleges is about 14,000, representing an annual output of about 6,000.

There is no question of releasing men and women from the Forces immediately, but the whole question of releases during the interim period between the defeat of Germany and the defeat of Japan is under consideration by the Government in connection with the proposals for re-allocation of man-power during that period outlined in the White Paper of last September.

:Will my right hon. Friend draw particular attention to what the Minister of Labour announced to-day, that in fact those who wish to leave industry for teaching can do so?

:I would not agree to put that interpretation on what my right hon. Friend said, but I hope that the answer he gave will receive wide publicity.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware of the propaganda about sending teachers to re-educate Germany, and will he tell these propagandists that we are ourselves 70,000 teachers short?

:What proportion of the 6,000 coming out of the training colleges are women, and what proportion are men?

Questions

Artificial Insemination (Experiments on Women)

asked the Minister of Health if he can now make a full statement on the current experiments in artifi- cial insemination of women; and if any births have resulted or are expected shortly to result therefrom.

:So far as my information goes, this operation is being performed with donated semen on a small scale in this country in cases where at the joint request of the husband and wife the responsible medical practitioner has satisfied himself that it is desirable. I do not think that the subject as a whole is one which can be satisfactorily discussed within the limits of a Parliamentary Question and answer, but I think it right to say that I am advised that it would be a breach of the law to register as legitimate a birth which occurred as a result of this operation when the husband is not in fact the father of the child.

:Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, I think quite rightly, that this matter cannot be fully discussed by question and answer, would he consider, in view of the interest shown by hon. Members, consulting with the Leader of the House to see whether it is possible to find time to discuss this very important social issue?

:Will the Minister bring in legislation to make this disgusting habit illegal?

:No, Sir. There are many aspects of this matter, and I am quite certain that on some of them, at any rate, there would be no general agreement. I am pursuing the inquiry into the whole matter.

:In the interests of common decency in this country, will the Minister make representations to the War Cabinet that this whole experimental scheme be brought to a conclusion?

:Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to maintain a scientific calm in this matter, and not be stampeded by those who approach it simply from an emotional angle?

Public Health

National Health Service

asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a White Paper on the new proposals for a National Health Service, which he has put before the British Medical Association and which they have circulated to their members, so that Members of this House and the public may also have an opportunity to consider the Government's revised scheme.

:I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham West (Dr. Summerskill) on 12th April, in which I made it clear that there is as yet neither any revised scheme put forward by the Government on this subject nor any proposals of which publication, in a White Paper or otherwise, would be appropriate.

:Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that he has informed the British Medical Association that if these new proposals are acceptable to their members he is prepared to recommend their acceptance by the Government? Is he really treating this House fairly, when the British Medical Association has been able to circularise these proposals not only to their 60,000 members, but also to all other members of the medical profession?

:I think I made the position quite clear in the answers I gave last week.

:Is it entirely proper for the Minister of Health to negotiate with an outside body legislation wholly different from that which the House itself has discussed in the form of a White Paper; and when does he propose to tell us what the proposals are that he has discussed with the British Medical Association?

:I cannot tell the House what proposals there are, when there are as yet no proposals.

:Can the Minister reconcile the answer he has given with the answer which he gave me last week, when he did not identify himself with any set of proposals, and in fact evaded the whole question, although he knows that he has put these proposals to the profession, and has undertaken, if they commend them, to sponsor them to the Cabinet?

:If the hon. Lady desires to challenge every statement that I made last week and the statement that I have made to-day, I cannot deal with the matter further.

:Since when has it been considered undemocratic for a Minister of the Crown, or a private Member, to discuss important issues with private bodies outside this House, including trade unions?

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the divergence of opinion about the proposals in the health White Paper and in view of the fact that many doctors, nurses and patients are on active service, he will postpone the introduction of the Bill based on the health White Paper until after the General Election.

:No, Sir. I am not prepared to give any undertaking to that effect. I explained the procedure which is being followed, in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) on 12th April.

:Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that sledgehammer methods will not pay in a democracy?

:Are we to understand, from the answer, that the Minister intends to introduce a Bill, based on the White Paper, before the General Election?

:I cannot say the date, and I cannot say what the eventual form of the Government's proposals will be.

Penicillin

asked the Minister of Health to what extent penicillin is now procurable at the direction of a medical practitioner; and what facilities exist for its immediate availability when it is prescribed.

:The scheme for the wider distribution of penicillin, to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) on 8th March, is now in operation. Supplies of penicillin have been issued through the distributing centres to nearly all the larger hospitals in the country, and may be obtained, on request, by any hospital which has a suit able case. I regret that supplies do not yet permit of the unrestricted distribution of penicillin through chemists and the usual trade channels, and a practitioner who requires penicillin for a patient must therefore obtain it from a hospital, and not through the issue of a prescription to the patient.

:Has a doctor, prescribing penicillin for an urgent case, when time is of vital importance, to wait now for somebody in a hospital to say whether he is right or not? If so, it may be too late for the penicillin to be of any use. In view of the great importance of penicillin, can my right hon. and learned Friend make some arrangement to cut out the delay which must be involved in that course?

:We are doing that to the greatest possible extent, but it would really be no use a doctor's following the usual procedure of issuing a prescription to his patient when penicillin can, in fact, be obtained only from a hospital.

L.C.C. Hostels (Medical Superintendents)

asked the Minister of Health how many of the 45 medical superintendents at present employed in L.C.C. hospitals, excluding mental hospitals, have served on the senior staffs of the London voluntary hospitals to which a medical school is attached.

:As indicated in my reply to a somewhat similar question by my hon. Friend on 12th April, I am making inquiries into this matter. As soon as I receive the desired particulars from the London County Council I will inform my hon. Friend.

Medical Officers (Post-Graduate Training)

asked the Minister of Health whether he will make any statement on the provision of postgraduate training for medical officers when they are released from the Forces after the end of hostilities in Europe.

:Yes, Sir. The Government desire to give every possible opportunity to medical officers, when they are released from the Forces, to continue the training which was interrupted by their service, and to bring up to date their professional knowledge in those branches of medicine required in civilian practice. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I, after consultation with the universities and other interested bodies, have set on foot a scheme—which we hope medical officers on release will use to the greatest possible extent—for the provision of further training or refresher facilities. An outline of the scheme is being brought to the notice of all serving officers by the Service Departments, and I will, with permission, circulate a brief summary in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the summary:

Men or women who joined the Forces within a year or so of obtaining a medical qualification (described in the Scheme as Class I) will be offered resident salaried posts for periods up to six months at approved hospitals providing suitable clinical material and guidance from senior members of the visiting staffs. Alternative arrangements may be adopted at certain centres in Scotland. There will also be financial assistance for those, such as candidates for a diploma in Public Health, who require facilities for study rather than a salaried post.

Those who had become established in general practice when they joined the Forces (Class II) will be offered refresher courses at hospitals approved by the Universities. These will be either concentrated courses of two weeks' duration or longer courses involving attendance on (say) two afternoons a week. These courses will be free of charge to the practitioner, who will also be able to claim repayment of travelling and subsistence expenses and the cost of engaging a locum tenens where necessary, up to a certain maximum.

For those who were training to become specialists when they joined the Forces or are accepted as suitable for such training on release (Class III) there will be posts of the "registrar" type in hospitals approved by the Universities.

If there is no suitable post available within the normal establishment for an applicant in Class I or III the creation of a post additional to the establishment will be considered.

Officers in the classes mentioned above can obtain further information about the scheme on release, either at their old Universities or Medical Schools or the University nearest where they are living, or at central "clearing houses" in London and Edinburgh.

Spas (Development)

asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take any action for the further development of British spas.

:I am in consultation with my Medical Advisory Committee in regard to future arrangements for the diagnosis and treatment of rheumatic diseases, with which spas are specially concerned, and it would be premature to make any pronouncement on the subject at present.

:Will the Minister consult the Association of British Spas, which met at Cheltenham last week and was addressed by Lord Horder, who pointed out how much behind Continental spas British spas were?

:I am sure that, in the course of the consideration of this matter by members of my medical advisory committee, the association my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned will be consulted.

Housing

Temporary Houses, London

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in most parts of London the erection of temporary houses on bombed sites will retard the progress of permanent housing; and if he is prepared to seek the necessary powers to erect temporary houses in selected parts of London parks and open spaces as an emergency measure.

:I am aware of difficulties in parts of London in securing suitable sites for temporary houses. As regards the last part of the Question, this matter is under consideration.

:When is a decision likely to be made; and is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole programme of rehousing in temporary dwellings is being held up until a decision is made on this point?

:It is an exaggeration to say that the whole programme is being held up. There is difficulty about a sub- stantial proportion of the sites, but I hope that a decision will be reached at an early date.

Unoccupied Hostel, Liverpool

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Bevington Bush Hostel, Liverpool, has been unoccupied for some years; that it could be adapted for the housing of about 100 families; and will he, in view of the acute shortage of houses in Liverpool, have this building converted to such a purpose.

:I understand that the Bevington Bush Hostel has not been used as a hostel for some years. The possibility of adapting it for housing purposes has been considered by the Liverpool City Council, who have decided that it could not be economically or satisfactorily adapted, on account of its planning and construction.

Compulsory Purchase Order, Chepping Wycombe

asked the Minister of Health for what reason he has failed to supply the borough of Chepping Wycombe with a copy of the document confirming the Compulsory Purchase Order for the advance preparation of housing sites in spite of the fact that he notified his decision to confirm this Order by letter on 16th February and this document, which is required for inserting the necessary advertisement in the local Press, has been asked for repeatedly by telephone, and by letter and the delay is holding up the provision of houses which are urgently required.

:After I had notified the town council of my intention to confirm the Order, questions arose concerning the interest of certain persons in the land to be taken, which did not appear in the Order as submitted by the council. As soon as these matters were settled, the Order was printed and confirmed. Copies were sent to the council on 17th April.

Brick Houses, Weston-super-Mare (Tenders)

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the council of the borough of Weston-super-Mare have received two tenders for the erection of 50 houses, of the traditional brick type, at a price of less than £650 per house; and, in view of this fact, will he encourage authorities likewise to advertise for tenders, and by this means enable the ordinary building trade to make its maximum contribution towards the solution of the urgent problem of housing.

:Yes, Sir. I have already invited local authorities to submit proposals for the construction of permanent houses.

:Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of the Minister of Works to this contract? I think it shows clearly that if they will use the ordinary methods of divisional building, the building trade can go a long way towards solving the difficulties of housing without the assistance of engineers.

:Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the statement in the Question, vouched for by my hon. Friend, that tenders have been received of £650 per house? If so, why have very high prices been mentioned in connection with other houses?

:I have ascertained that these tenders have been made, but I am not acquainted with the full details.

:If the facts are as stated, does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that they show what a progressive local authority can do?

Questions

Planning Scheme (Godstone)

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the Godstone scheme for country planning; and if any action will be taken by his Ministry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning
(Mr. Arthur Jenkins)

:I am not clear to which scheme the Question refers, but I have been informed of a proposal by a company to carry out building development in the Godstone rural district. It is for the local planning authority in the first instance to consider an application for interim development permission, and I understand that an application has now been made and is under consideration.

:As there appears to be some misunderstanding about the nature of the scheme, will my hon. Friend allow me to send him full details?

Ve-Day (Announcement)

asked the Prime Minister if steps will be taken to defer the announcement of VE-Day until the capitals of Norway, Holland and Czechoslovakia have been liberated.

asked the Prime Minister whether General Eisenhower's statement that Victory in Europe Day will not be proclaimed until all important centres of German resistance have been liquidated will be interpreted as meaning that Norway, Denmark, the French Channel and Atlantic ports and the Channel Islands shall be liberated before any such proclamation.

:I have no announcement to make about VE-Day at the present time, except that I deprecate premature speculations upon the subject. The matter is not one we could settle by ourselves.

:If the Prime Minister is unable to give more information at the present time, will he, at least, bear in mind that the idea of celebrating victory while part of our own metropolitan territory is still in enemy occupation, would be repugnant to a great many people?

:As I say, it is not a matter which rests with us, and it requires very careful judgment. I am not going to accept any limiting conditions at the present time. As I have said, we must attune our minds to the feelings of others.

:May I ask the Prime Minister whether the determination of VE-day will be based upon military considerations, that is to say, the efficacy of the occupation of a considerable portion of the country, or will it be based upon political considerations, as to a day which is regarded as suitable to be so fixed?

:As I have said, the matter is to be discussed between the three or four principal Powers engaged, and I should imagine that both military and political considerations—I do not mean our domestic political considerations—will have to enter into that, but I did say that I have no announcement to make about VE-Day, and I must not allow myself to be tempted to go further.

:Will the Prime Minister say whether full consideration will be given to the natural feelings of those men still serving at the front on our behalf?

:I cannot conceive that the great Powers, in coming to their decision, will not have at their disposal the advice of their military men, who, indeed, can tell us better than anyone else, and, certainly, they must be trusted to judge the feelings of our soldiers. I do not know myself why all this talk of VE-Day has got about. No one in His Majesty's Government, and no responsible gentleman in any of the parties, so far as I know, has given any special encouragement to it.

:Is it not rather inconvenient for the House, that General Eisenhower can make a statement on this subject, though the Prime Minister cannot?

:I do not think that that is the way to put it at all. I certainly have the liberty to make a statement on the subject if I think it right, but I think it would be very much better to consult with the principal Powers with whom we are working, and, of course, the Commander-in-Chief is one who has a perfect right to express his views on the military situation. I may add that Field-Marshal Alexander has also telegraphed in the sense of the statement made by General Eisenhower.

German Concentration Camps (Parliamentary Delegation)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that the Allies retain the captured prison-camp of Buchenwald intact as a memorial of German methods.

:As I have a short statement to make on this subject at the end of Questions, I will, if the hon. Member will permit me, use his Question as the occasion for making it.

Later

:No words can express the horror which is felt by His Majesty's Government and their principal Allies at the proofs of these frightful crimes now daily coming into view. I do not at present, however, wish to commit myself to any special policy such as the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

I have this morning received an informal message from General Eisenhower saying that the new discoveries, particularly at Weimar, far surpass anything previously exposed. He invites me to send a body of Members of Parliament at once to his Headquarters in order that they may themselves have ocular and firsthand proof of these atrocities.

The matter is of urgency, as of course it is not possible to arrest the processes of decay in many cases. In view of this urgency, I have come to the conclusion that eight Members of this House and two Members of the House of Lords should form a Parliamentary Delegation, and should travel out at once to the Supreme Headquarters, where General Eisenhower will make all the necessary arrangements for their inspection of the scenes, whether in American or British sectors. Members who volunteer for this extremely unpleasant but none the less necessary duty, should give their names to their Party Whips, in order that a body representative of all Parties may be selected by the usual methods during this afternoon. I should propose that they start to-morrow.

I hope that the House will approve of the somewhat rapid decision I have taken.

:May I say that the House, I am quite certain, fully approves and admires the invitation given by General Eisenhower, and the decision of the Prime Minister, and I should think it would be the wish of all Members of this House that a Parliamentary delegation should, as early as possible, go to the scenes of these terrible crimes?

:I know it is difficult for the Prime Minister to add to what he said just now, because of the absence of many details, but a great deal of anxiety is caused to families in this country sometimes by the feeling that the camps referred to are camps in which British and American prisoners of war are confined. Ought it not to be made clear that these camps were originally formed to deal with the political enemies of Hitler and the Nazis, and the chief victims were the Communists, Socialists, and trade unionists who have suffered for many years from these tortures? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, be good enough to ask the authorities on the spot whether they will make lists of the survivors, so that we may be able to give them such succour as we can if some of our comrades have survived these fearful ordeals?

:I am sure that everything is done to collect nominal lists of persons who have suffered loss in this way, but I will have the point brought to the notice of the United States authorities through whatever are the proper channels.

:Could the Prime Minister arrange that those Members of the House who feel it possible to volunteer for this horrible duty, should have medical assistance, so that evidence can be collected and such photographs as possible be published, and also that the report of those Members should eventually be published as a State Paper?

:There will be available the medical authorities of the Armies, which comprise the highest talent in either this country or the United States. Photographs are taken with great frequency and photographs will be shown of the Members in these gruesome scenes, showing exactly the thorough nature of the examination to be carried out. I do not think there is any reason to fear that it will not be entirely authoritative and satisfactory. As to publishing the report as a State Paper, I would naturally like to consider that. The object of this visit is to find out the truth, and, if the truth is found out, why should it not be made available?

:Could the Prime Minister give any reassurance to the many people who have relatives as prisoners of war whether the Germans have been observing the Geneva Convention, because these horrors are causing great distress, and are likely to cause great distress, among people who are inclined to feel that their relatives are being treated in this way? Could the right hon. Gentleman give some reassurance to those who are suffering in this way?

:I could not deal with questions in detail in respect of prisoners of war. That would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. But I may say that a solemn warning has been prepared for the German Government or whatever authorities exist in that country, by Soviet Russia, the United States and ourselves, and this, I think, will be issued in a very few days. As it happens, M. Molotov will soon be with the other two Secretaries of State, and I imagine that the issue will follow very speedily after their meeting. This warning is designed to bring home the responsibility not only to the men at the top who are already, on other grounds, war criminals, in many cases, but to the actual people who have done this foul work with their own hands, and to make it clear that no order from a superior authority will be any shield to them.

:Will the Prime Minister see that this Parliamentary Delegation contains at least one hon. Member of this House who, before the war, was associated with organisations such as "The Link," or the Anglo-German Fellowship?

:Instead of asking a lot of supplementary questions, I suggest Members might put in their applications to go on the delegation as there is not much time before departure.

:Arising out of the most important statement the Prime Minister has made with regard to the treatment of criminals, who are themselves responsible, with their own hands, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for these crimes, would he make it clear that the defence of superior orders will not inure to them? Will that be made known to the German people now, as a pronouncement of the Allied Forces?

:I was giving an indication of the declaration signed by the President of the United States, Marshal Stalin and myself which will very likely be issued in a few days. That point is certainly contained in the declaration.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the House does not desire to be represented by the usual official delegates?

Agriculture

Soil Conservation (Mr. Russell Lord's Visit)

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will arrange for Mr. Russell Lord, an authority on conservation and rural life in America, who is about to visit this country as the guest of his Ministry, to accept invitations to visit provincial centres and address meetings on soil conservation in the U.S.A.

:I understand that Mr. Russell Lord, whom I have been glad to welcome to this country, will be reading a Paper on Soil Conservation in America before the Royal Geographical Society on Monday, 30th April, and I have no doubt that Mr. Lord will be prepared to consider any further invitations that may be addressed to him so far as his time and other engagements permit.

:If an invitation to this gentleman is sent by local branches of the National Farmers Union, would his services be available to address them?

Long-term Policy

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state the Government's long-term policy on agriculture.

:Does the Minister not feel that this question deserves something rather more than staccato monosyllabic negatives; and could he not say in two words when he is likely to be able to announce the policy?

:Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the general protective system which now commands very wide acceptance, will not be abrogated in any way or done away with?

:Will the Minister not regard this matter a little more seriously, as there is a great deal of concern about the future of agriculture in this country; and will he not, very shortly, make a more considered and detailed statement on the matter?

:No one has greater or deeper concern for the future of agriculture in this country than I have, but I still think that the time has not yet come when it is possible to announce the detailed programme.

Women's Land Army

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the appellation of W.L.A. is misleading since they have been held to be not eligible for the usual benefits applicable to the Services, he will consider an alteration in the title which would carry with it some additional benefit to those engaged in this important work.

:The Women's Land Army has won for itself, under that name, a very high reputation during two wars. I see no reason to make an alteration in title which would serve no useful purpose, and would be liable to cause confusion.

:Does the Minister appreciate that, while I do not mind whether the title is changed or not, I do want to see that they get fair play and are given something for the fine work they have done during the war?

:It is because I do not think that the alteration of the title would achieve that object that I have arrived at the answer I have given.

Training

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now able to make a pronouncement giving the specific details of the full scheme for training men and women for agriculture.

:I am not yet in a position to add anything to my reply of 12th April to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Chater) on this matter.

Ex-Service Personnel (Small Holdings)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that a number of ex-Servicemen want to go on the land to have a holding of their own, he will afford facilities for the purchase of land or small holdings for ex-Servicemen and women.

:I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) on 2nd November last.

:Is the Minister aware that this is getting rather monotonous and that these matters must be tackled seriously, in view of the real shortage of food and the importance of agriculture; and is he aware that the whole thing is becoming highly unsatisfactory?

War Executive Committees (Crop Losses)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether a war agricultural executive committee bears the loss on a specified crop which a farmer has been ordered to grow; and is there any method of appeal.

:The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir," but prices have been fixed and guaranteed which provide the efficient farmer with a reasonable return on his enterprise as a whole. As regards the second, a farmer has no statutory right of appeal, but committees are always ready to give careful consideration to any representations made to them, subject to the overriding necessity of production of the particular crops required to maintain supplies essential to the life of the community.

:Is it not a case of a regulation which penalises a citizen of this country and against which he has no appeal and no recourse?

:No, Sir; any such practice would be impossible, and would cut right across the general principles, adopted by the Government and sanctioned by this House, applicable to individuals and professions, that the Government cannot accept responsibility for the payment of trading or professional losses resulting from compliance with war-time requirements and arising out of war-time conditions.

:Will the Minister start to remove this iniquitous state of things when the war is over?

:Yes, Sir, but the emergency is still as grave as ever, so far as food is concerned.

Forestry Workers (Wage Rates)

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that forestry workers on private estates while included in the agricultural workers scheme for National Health and Unemployment Insurance do not have the benefit of the minimum wage for agricultural workers; and if he will take steps to apply this minimum wage to all workers included in the agricultural scheme.

:I am advised that the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act apply to all workers employed in forestry.

India

Press Agencies (Financial Assistance)

asked the Secretary of State for India if he has now received a report as to what subsidies or financial assistance have been granted to the Associated Press of India or similar Indian agencies.

:The Government of India report that they hope to furnish me with the desired information very shortly. The delay is due to the necessity for collating information from Provincial Governments.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am referring to the Associated Press of India, and not to the Associated Press of this country?

:Yes, Sir, but the information has still to be collected from the Provincial Governments.

British Officers, Indian Army

asked the Secretary of State for India why 3,000 British other ranks were not asked whether they were willing to be commissioned in the Indian Army before being so commissioned; when this irregularity began and ended; and who was held responsible.

:The officers concerned had been trained in officer training units in India and on passing out they were posted by the military authorities in India to the British Service or the Indian Army according to vacancies. So far as I am aware, no objection was raised by the officers at the time and it was not unnaturally assumed in the circumstances that those commissioned to the Indian Army were satisfied. Now that it has been decided to give the officers concerned the opportunity of transfer to the British Service if they desire, I think that all practicable steps have been taken to regularise the situation.

:Was this action in accordance with instructions, and ought not option to transfer to the British Service be granted to these officers without the qualifications contained in last week's announcement?

:I really could not say how far, at the time, these officers were informed that if they did not like a commission they could stay in the ranks, but conditions of transfer to the British Service have now been clearly stated.

:What is more honourable than for a British officer to lead the gallant regiments of our Indian friends?

Congress Leaders (Detention)

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the establishment of a Congress Ministry in the strategically important province of the North-West frontier, and of a Congress-supported government on the Eastern frontier in Assam, he will reconsider the continued imprisonment of the principal leaders of the Congress with a view to their release.

:I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave in this matter to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 15th March, and 12th April.

Legislative Assembly (Finance Bills)

asked the Secretary of State for India on how many occasions during the last 10 years has the Legislative Assembly accorded support to any Finance Bill introduced therein by the Government of India.

:In the past ten years eleven Finance Bills were submitted to the Indian Legislative Assembly. On four occasions the Bill was passed by the Assembly without amendment or with amendments which the Government were prepared to accept.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some account of the other seven Bills that were presented?

:I do not think I can give a detailed account. I think, on certain occasions, amendments were put forward by the Assembly which were not accepted, and the Government Bill was passed against the vote of the Assembly.

:Are we to understand from that rather vague answer that some of these Bills were rejected by the Legislative Assembly? Is not that the answer, pure and simple?

:I would remind the hon. Member that the Indian Constitution is not the same as ours, and that the assent of the Assembly is not in every circumstance essential to the passing of a Measure.

Questions

Parliamentary Electorate

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number of the electorate is expected to be at the next general election; and what percentage of those over 21 years of age, now serving in the Forces, have completed the forms which entitle them to vote.

:Without inquiry of the registration officers concerned it is not possible prior to its publication to give any estimate of the number of persons who will appear on the May Register. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is estimated by the Service Departments that the service register will contain some 90 per cent. of the members of the Forces qualified to be registered.

:Will there be any last-minute opportunity for the 10 per cent. minority which did not avail themselves of the opportunity of registering, if they should change their minds?

:I cannot be sure from memory, but my impression is that there are possibilities to that end.

:Will there be any chances offered to them to understand what they are voting about?

:May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will answer Question 71 at the end of Questions?

Civil Defence

V2 Attacks, Southern England

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature and effects of V2 attacks on Southern England.

:I hope that it will be possible to make a statement on this subject before long.

Air-raid Shelters (Collection and Disposal)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any arrangements have been made, when the war in Europe ends, for the collection and disposal of Anderson and Morrison air-raid shelters; whether these arrangements will cover such shelters as have been purchased by house holders; and whether, as regards bought shelters, a repurchase price will be paid to their owners.

:When the Government reach the conclusion that the risk of air attack has disappeared, arrangements will be made for the collection and ultimate disposal of the shelters which are Government property and have a residual value. The process will necessarily be gradual as there are many more urgent tasks with prior claims on the limited resources of labour and transport available. Users of Government owned domestic shelters will in due course be given opportunities to purchase them; it is not proposed to repurchase privately owned shelters.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the use of those shelters to private people, and to what purpose they can put them?

:They might use them as tables, or as storage. They might even have them ready for the next war, if there is one.

Questions

Municipal Wards (Alterations)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response is forthcoming to his request to local authorities (Ref. 83070/91, dated 15th February, 1945) to consider alterations in municipal wards consequent upon the passing of recent legislation; in how many cases have local authorities refused to take action where anomalies exist; and what action he proposes to take in such cases.

:The purpose of the Home Office circular addressed to borough councils to which my hon. Friend refers was merely to give them early notice that the war-time ban on the presentation of petitions for the alteration of wards and suchlike matters had been removed by the Representation of the People Act, 1945, and to secure that if any council wished to present a petition, it should be presented in good time in order to enable an Order in Council to be made before the compilation of the Autumn Register, the qualifying date for which is 30th June. About 20 municipal councils have intimated that they have under consideration the presentation of a petition. I have no power to compel a municipal council to present a petition since the initiative is vested by law in the councils, and, in view of the present shortage of staff and the movement of the population, I do not think it would be right for me to bring any pressure to bear on local authorities in the present conditions to undertake a review of their ward boundaries.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bolton town council, a very enlightened authority, have already acted on his suggestion, and have redistributed their wards, but the city council of Manchester (in whose area I happen to live) have taken no action at all and the anomalies of the wards in Manchester are, if anything, very much greater than in Bolton?

:It may be so, but the initiative rests with the Manchester city council and I should be rather careful myself of giving the Manchester city council instructions on a matter of this kind.

Questions to Ministers

:On a point of Order. Before the Prime Minister announces the Business for next week, Mr. Speaker, will you give the Home Secretary an opportunity of answering Question No. 69, in view of the apparent illegality of the appointments referred to therein, and give him a chance of defending his action?

:That is not a matter for me; it is entirely within the discretion of the Home Secretary.

:I am entirely in the hands of the House. If they wish I will answer it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I gather that it is the wish of the House.

:I learn that the Question has been postponed, in any case, so it cannot be answered now.

House of Commons Chamber (Lighting)

:May I ask you, Sir, whether you will make representations to the proper quarter to enable us to get natural light into this Chamber, instead of having to work in artificial light all the time?

:Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await a statement which, I understand, is to be made later.

Business of the House

:May I ask the Prime Minister if he will state the Business of the House for next week?

:Yes, Sir, the Business will be as follows:

On Tuesday, 24th April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.

On Wednesday and Thursday, 25th and 26th April, there will be a general Debate on the Budget Resolutions.

On Friday, 27th April, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill and the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax Order relating to Aluminium Domestic Hollow-ware.

:In view of the heavy pressure of work which lies ahead of the House, and the slow progress which is being made with the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill, on which we have already spent two and a half Parliamentary days—we have just finished Clause 7, and there are 55 Clauses in the Bill— will my right hon. Friend consider whether progress might be expedited in some way or, alternatively, whether he will come back to a proposal I made at the beginning of this Session, that the House might now begin to resume its Sittings on Mondays?

:The Government are anxious to get on with this Bill, to which two and a half days have already been given. We have reached only Clause 8, having postponed Clause 4, and there are 55 Clauses and one Schedule in the Bill. It is an important and essential Bill and one which the House will naturally wish to examine with care. We desire to obtain the Committee stage as soon as possible—we shall welcome the co-operation of Members in all parts of the House—and we must hope to make good progress to-day, in which case such drastic action as has properly been suggested by my right hon. Friend will not have to be taken. Under war-time conditions and means of transport I think Monday Sittings would be a considerable burden upon Members.

:I do not press the point at this stage, but I assure my right hon. Friend that I and those for whom I speak will do everything to promote the passage of the Bill, which my right hon. Friend really must get in some form or another. I would like to ask a question about tomorrow's Business. To-morrow we are adopting the most unusual course of taking the Army and Air Force Annual Bill, which is exempted Business, and therefore the House may sit for quite a long time. Would it not be for the convenience of the House if, with the understanding we have that at some appropriate time there will be a discussion upon India, the Indian Proclamation Orders might be taken quite formally and made the first Business to-morrow, so that we may then proceed to the Army and Air Force Annual Bill?

:If my right hon. Friend is in a position to guarantee that the Indian Orders will be taken formally to-morrow, we would like very much to consider his suggestion through the usual channels.

:Can the Prime Minister give any indication of when he is likely to be able to make the statement on the Russo-Polish situation and on the war which he was to have made to-day?

:Next week is fairly well occupied by the Budget. I will during the course of next week indicate whether I think the week after that is suitable or not.

:Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), would the Prime Minister, in considering this matter, bear in mind the fact that a short and inconclusive discussion upon India at this time would hardly be seemly or helpful?

:We are in entire accord with that view. That is why we should like to see the Indian Orders taken formally to-morrow.

:On the question of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bill as at present drafted has serious implications on common land, on small private businesses and the interests of agriculture, and could he expedite matters by getting a decision from the Treasury on the subject of common land, and in that way to enable the Bill to make quicker progress?

:My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the advantage of hearing the hon. Member's question.

:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the question which I put to the Foreign Secretary last week on whether he will be able to give a day when we can deal with war credits?

:May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the event of the Government getting Clause 13 of the Requisitioned Land Bill fairly late this evening, they will consider reporting Progress at that stage, in view of the great importance of Clause 4, which will then fall to be considered and which was postponed as the result of a great difference of opinion between the Government and hon. Members?

:We are suspending the Rule this evening and we must make all the progress that we can.

:May I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a Motion on the Order Paper asking for a Select Committee to be set up to inquire into the recent accidents occurring to planes of Transport Command and whether he will give time for that Motion to be discussed?

:No, Sir, I do not think we could undertake that. The Government would have to oppose the Motion. We do not think it would be advantageous or the most convenient way of keeping vigilant eyes on these matters, and we really are so hard-pressed for time that care must be taken to leave a certain latitude to enable us to deal with any large matters which may come up and require consideration.

:I wish to ask a question in relation to the proposed statement on the war and in particular in connection with Poland. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the anxiety about the situation is not confined only to those who voted against the Government on the Yalta Debate. Since that time seven weeks have elapsed, during which we have kept completely quiet and used the little influence we may possess outside this House in trying to persuade our friends and others who feel anxious about the situation also to keep quiet, in order to give the negotiations every chance of success. It is seven weeks since that Debate. Would my right hon. Friend, without, of course, jeopardising the negotiations which are going on, recognise how important it is that we should have a Debate as soon as it is possible for him to arrange for it, and would he also consider—

:I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to put it as concisely as I could. May I ask the Prime Minister if he would consider, when the discussion does take place, making his statement on one day and then having the Debate on it two or three days after, so as to give the House every opportunity to consider the statement?

:I have as much desire as any hon. Member to make a statement upon this subject, and the reason why I am asking for further time is my great wish that the statement shall be of a satisfactory nature. With regard to having an interval between the statement and the Debate, I am not at all sure whether the House would be of one mind on that procedure. When a statement is made by the Prime Minister or one of his principal colleagues on an important topic, the House usually, though not invariably, asks for a discussion upon it immediately, while the impression is still fresh, and I should be sorry if we should act otherwise in this matter. If there is to be a Debate it had better follow immediately upon the statement.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are other important military and political developments that are very much in the minds of hon. Members besides Poland, and a discussion upon them ought not to depend entirely on the delicate negotiations going on at the present time?

:That is quite true, and I have no doubt that I shall find other topics to touch upon besides Poland, and if the question of Poland has to be put off for any serious length of time I certainly would make a statement, omitting anything of that character, but I hope to be able to combine them all together.

Black-Out Regulations (Relaxation)

:In view of the improved military situation I have reviewed the existing black-out requirements so far as they affect the civil population in their homes and places of work. It has now been decided to remove all restrictions which require the limitation of the amount of light shown from all buildings such as houses, offices, factories and industrial premises except in a belt approximately five miles wide all round the coast of Great Britain. Within this belt full blackout must be observed in the few areas where it is still in operation, and in the remainder of the coastal belt "dim out" as at present must be retained. The retention of the existing restrictions in coastal areas is considered necessary by the Admiralty in order to avoid giving assistance to enemy submarines and other craft in their attacks on our ships. Because of the increased amount of light which will be shown from private and industrial buildings occupiers are advised on an alert to draw blinds or put out lights where it is possible to do so. No requirement to this effect will however be imposed unless conditions change. Street lighting will not be affected at present for street lighting authorities are being asked, as in previous war years, to put out their street lights on 1st May for the period of double summer time as a measure of fuel economy. They are being advised to prepare during this period for full street lighting as from 15th July next. The removal of restrictions on the display of light from buildings, except those in coastal areas, will operate as from black-out time on Monday evening next, 23rd April, by which time I expect that particulars of the special coastal belt where restrictions must be maintained will have been made public.

:While welcoming the announcement made by the Home Secretary, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the sentence in his statement in connection with street lighting is liable to give local authorities the impression that after 15th July there will be no further need for any fuel economy; and will he make it clear that fuel economy is still very important?

:Yes, but, on the other hand, we shall never get this job done if we do not prepare for it. It is a matter that will take some months, from the point of view of both labour and material. If at the time the Ministry of Fuel and Power consider that the fuel economy aspects of the matter are still urgent, they will have to do the best they can, but I think we now ought to get ready for street lighting.

:May I ask the Home Secretary, or you, Mr. Speaker, whether this announcement will mean that the light over Big Ben that indicates when Parliament is on its business will be lit once more?

:I can answer the hon. and gallant Member myself. I propose on Tuesday, if the House is sitting and if the Adjournment takes place about the usual time, 9.15, to switch on the light myself as soon as it gets reasonably dark.

:In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has now almost come round to the view which I have been pressing on him for a long time may I ask whether his proposal to continue this wide mileage ban on the coast is not due to the Admiralty, because how can a light five miles inland be of any value to a German submarine?

:My hon. Friend is very fond of an argument, and far be it from me to stop him, but on this occasion he must have his argument with the First Lord of the Admiralty and not with me.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW reported from the Committee of Selection, That Sir John Boyd Orr and Mr. McIntyre, being Members representing Scottish constituencies, are added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under Standing Order No. 47 (2).

Business of the House

Proceedings in Committee on the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ The Prime Minister. ]

Orders of the Day

Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill

Considered in Committee [ Progress, 18 th April ].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 8.—(Reference to Commission of proposals to acquire land or rights.)

3.44 p.m.

:Before I call upon the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) to move his Amendment, may I say that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if all the Amendments dealing with the question of notices and advertisements were taken together? May I take it that that is the wish of the Committee?

:Will it be in Order to discuss my Amendment—in page 4, line 47, after "shall" insert "serve on the occupier of the land and"—which happens to come before the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope)?

:I beg to move, in page 4, line 47, leave out "publish, in such," and insert:

"give a written notice of his proposals to every person known by him to have an interest in the land and to the local planning authority, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Board of Trade, and shall also publish such notice by advertisement in two successive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land is situated and in such other."

I do not think I need say much to recommend this Amendment to the Committee. I think it must be the desire of all hon. Members and of the Government that adequate notice should be given to those concerned. I do not think the Bill provides for adequate notice.

:I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) that the words in the Bill are not sufficient in that they leave the whole matter to the discretion of the Minister, but I do not agree that my right hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment solves the problem. During recent months we have spent a lot of time in discussing provisions of this nature with regard to the public acquisition of land, and it is about time that we settled on some recognised code as to what a Minister who is seeking to acquire land shall do. The Town and Country Planning Act goes into this matter in great detail, and there are similar provisions in the Distribution of Industry Bill, and yet when we come to this Bill we find that everything that has been settled by the House is thrown on one side, and the matter is left to the discretion of the Minister. The Amendment on the Order Paper in my name, which it is in Order to discuss now, seeks to adopt precisely the same procedure as the House approved in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and which the House is to be asked to approve in the Distribution of Industry Bill. My Amendment reads:

In page 4, line 47, leave out from "in," to "within," on page 5, line 3, and insert "one or more newspapers circulating in the district in which the land to which his proposals relate is situated a notice stating the Minister's proposals and describing the land and naming a place where a copy of his proposals and of the map or maps and any descriptive matter annexed thereto may be seen at all reasonable hours and specifying the time (not being less than three months from the first local advertisement)."

That is a very important provision which is not contained either in the Bill or in my right hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, although it is in the Town and Country Planning Act and in the Distribution of Industry Bill. The other Amendment in my name reads—

In page 5, line 6, at end, insert "and shall serve on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or a less period than a month) of any of the land to which the proposals relate and on such other persons, bodies, societies and local authorities as appear to him interested, a notice stating the proposals and the effect thereof and specifying the time with- in which and the manner in which objections to the proposals may be made."

It seems to me that if those two Amendments were accepted by the Government, the individual who is likely to be affected by any public acquisition under any of these Measures would know where to look in order to see notice of the proposal by the Government, and would also have an opportunity of seeing a plan and a copy of the proposal at some place in the district. I regard this as a very important provision. My argument will not be any stronger if I add to its length; I wish simply to stress that in my opinion it is very desirable that, when the Crown seeks to acquire, there should be some regular code by which notice of the proposal can be given.

:I understand it is in Order for me to discuss now the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper—in page 4, line 47, after "shall," insert:

"serve on the occupier of the land and"?

I realise that this provision is included in the Amendment that has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). It is absolutely necessary that something more should be provided than is done in the Bill, which simply provides that

"the Minister shall publish, in such manner as appears to him best adapted."

That is not sufficient. It is not even certain that everybody reads advertisements of notices in the local newspapers. I feel it is necessary that every owner and occupier who is known to the Government should be served with a personal notice in any case in which there is a question of the compulsory acquisition of his property. It may be suggested that it would be difficult to do this, but I maintain that it would not be, because the Government, through the medium of the Inland Revenue taxation authorities, have, in Schedule A and Schedule B assessments, a register of the owners and occupiers, theoretically at any rate, of all the land in the Kingdom. It ought to be possible through that medium to give personal notice to those who are pricipally affected. I very strongly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry.

:I am in a difficult position in that I am very anxious to support the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), to which I have put my name, and also the other two Amendments that have been made, moved or referred to. I support the three Amendments. I think it is essential that notice should be given to the occupier of land and that the local newspapers should carry the notice, because they are read by the people generally. I appeal to the Minister to select the best from these three Amendments and put it in the Bill.

:I wish to state two arguments on these Amendments. In the first place, I support the Amendment of my fright hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). The House has laid down Standing Orders for the regulation of similar cases in Private Business. I would remind the Solicitor-General that in Standing Order No. 10, paragraph (2), in the case of a Bill authorising the construction of works or the taking or compulsory use of land, it is laid down that notice shall be published in two successive weeks in newspapers circulated in the locality. That is a strong argument in favour of my right hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. In this Bill there is a quicker method than is provided under the Private Bill procedure for getting hold of land, whether common land or private land, and we should see that the same safeguards are included as the House has put in for its own Private Bill business. As regards the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), it is clear that the Commission and the Department will know who is the occupier of the land, because these are cases where claims for compensation under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, will be on the point of being submitted. Therefore, there can be no question that the occupier will want to know what action the Government are taking, in order to help him with his claim. If for any reason he were not served with a notice, it would be an attempt to defeat his rightful claim to compensation. It is essential to provide that he should be served with a notice of the Government's intention.

:I have put my name to the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), but I must confess that, after listening to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I begin to see that a recognised code, such as he suggested, would probably be the most satisfactory way of dealing with this business. I dare say that the Government, in opposing the Amendment, may make the point that there is not enough time to adopt the procedure laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, but I do not see that that need apply, because the notices now in question deal only with the acquisition of land. I cannot see that there will be a violent hurry for acquisition once the Commission has held its proceedings and made known its decision. There is one additional point which is included in the Amendment of my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). This Amendment, in page 4, line 47, provides for publication in

"the London Gazette and once at least in each of two successive weeks in a national newspaper and a newspaper circulating in the area to which his proposals relate and in such other."

I submit that this addition would be of great value. The "London Gazette" is what one might term the Army List for all these affairs, and it is very convenient in offices, particularly where the shortage of staff will continue for some time to come, that there should be some journal in which all these matters are included. I believe that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry would be the most acceptable to the Government, and I hope they will enlarge the scope of the notices, because in any case the opinion of the Minister is not sufficient for the purposes which those who are moving and supporting these Amendments have in mind.

:The number of names attached to the various Amendments on this subject shows the amount of anxiety there is in connection with it. There are about six names to each Amendment, and on the whole there is a very considerable amount, of anxiety about publication and notice. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members are not satisfied with the words in the Clause, even as amended by the Chancellor's Amendments. Therefore, I hope the Government will seriously consider adopting either the words of one of the Amendments or the substance of all of them. I have my name to the Amend- ment of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) because I believe it really is the most inclusive and complete, and in particular it refers to maps, which the others do not, which I think is of great importance when property is being acquired by the State so that it shall be amply known what the actual delimitations of the property are, and that can only be shown on a map or maps. My hon. Friend also made a good point on the question of building up a code for dealing with the compulsory acquisition of property. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to Standing Orders. I think one of these forms of words should be incorporated in the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

:The substance of all these Amendments is that clear information should be given. After all, the country point of view is different from that of the town. Much damage will be done to agriculture and everything else, unless sufficient notice is given of any acquisition of land. It seems to me that, generally speaking, the Clause contracts out of the Sections in the Town and Country Planning Bill. Food production and other things will very likely be hindered unless they are represented. Maps are very important, especially in country districts, where we ought to have the fullest information about these things. This is a matter that ought to be thoroughly publicised everywhere.

:I have listened with great interest and I hope I have appreciated all the points that my hon. Friends have put forward. I hope the Committee will agree that the best method of approaching it is to divide the contents of the Amendments into two parts, because they all fall rightly into that division, first of all the classes of persons, or bodies of persons, who are to receive notice, and secondly the contents of the notice that is to be given. Dealing first with the classes of persons, I hope the Committee will bear with an analysis, because it is necessary if we are going to appreciate the question. The first sub-class that is suggested is occupiers. I think my hon. Friends will see that that is not quite the happiest word for dealing with the situation because in the case of requisitioned land the occupier is the Crown itself, and clearly that is not what my hon. Friends desire. If they have in mind the person who would be the occupier if the Crown did not occupy, I think they will agree that that is setting a problem of great difficulty which is not competent of practical solution. As far as that is concerned, one wants to do justice and to find the interested party, and that is what the Government Amendment tries to do. We all agree that that is a duty which must be performed. But when you come-to tying it down to someone who is known to have an interest or, as in the Daventry version of this proposal, the owner, lessee or occupier, you become involved in a hunt for the various interests in the land which may well take a period of something up to 18 months before you can discover all the relevant interests, and hang the matter up in a way that none of us want.

The next class is the local planning authority. That is also in my right hon. Friend's Amendment. There will be many cases in which the local planning authority is not interested at all and in which the question will merely be one between the Crown, which is acquiring, and the person whose land is going to be acquired. It may be that the land is within a scheme, or is designated, and no question of planning comes into it at all. In that case it would be a work of super-erogation to give notice to the planning authority and introduce them into a subject matter with which they are not concerned. The next class that my right hon. Friend suggests is "other Government Departments." That, as has been explained in other connections, is covered by consultation at official levels, which is so important and which it is part of the duty of the House to see is properly carried out. Therefore, again I suggest that that is unnecessary, especially with the provisions as to the protection of general planning which are going to be introduced at a slightly later stage. These are the classes which are suggested and this is the purpose of all these different Amendments, including the Government Amendment. The person that we want to give notice to is the person interested. The Bill imposes a mandatory duty and says: I suggest that you could not put a more clear, emphatic and specific duty on the Minister than to use the best method of information which he can apply to the various persons interested, to the best of his knowledge at the time.

I now come to consider the requisites of the contents of the notices. The first is that there should be a description of the land and the nature of the grounds for the proposal. As I construe the words that I have just read, notice of the Minister's proposals clearly implies that they will specify the land that is affected, and the fact that he is to give notice of the proposals connotes that he should say what they are and what he is doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) suggests that there ought to be a provision naming a place where maps may be consulted. The Government entirely agrees that there may be cases where that is necessary, and in those cases it will be done. But because it is necessary in some cases, especially in some country districts, it is not necessary in all cases and, when you take the far more common example where you have industrial premises being acquired inside a town, it would in my view be really rather absurd to introduce a provision of this kind.

The same applies to advertisements in local papers. There will be many cases, of course, where that is proper—in the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) mentioned, the case of private Bill procedure, because the private Bill procedure for the acquisition of land is a general procedure in which the rights of landowners and others affected is discussed in a Committee of the House. This is a case where there may be something that approaches very nearly the ordinary purchase of some premises. There may be other cases where there is a wider scope and in those cases again it would be absolutely right, and it is the intention of the Government that the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend should be pursued, and in these suitable cases the Minister will make these advertisements.

But again it would be quite wrong, because that is necessary in some cases, to make it a general plan which must apply in every case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there is such a thing as endeavouring to regiment people out of regimentation, and the intention of my hon. Friends is to protect the private interests which are affected by this matter. I say that the private interest will not thank you, when it is a case of a simple matter of purchase, if you tie it round by all sorts of arrangements, safeguards and possibilities which have no application to the particular transaction in which he is involved and only mean that a matter which he would prefer to be dealt with quietly as between the acquiring Minister and himself is brought out into entirely unnecessary publicity and puts him to an entirely unnecessary amount of bother. I ask my hon. Friends to remember that they are not only considering general propositions. They are considering particular cases where particular persons will be involved, and they should think of their aspect of the matter and the trouble to which they may be putting them. Therefore I ask the Committee to consider that the best method of dealing with the problem is to have a flexible procedure.

4.15 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry made a powerful plea on the question of uniformity and said this was the main argument which he added to the argument of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), that you are laying this down in other Statutes and, therefore, you ought to lay it down in this Bill. I very respectfully disagree with him. We ought to be the masters of our legislation and not let our legislation master us. The code which is very appropriate to the problem was discussed last autumn on the Town and Country Planning Bill and, therefore, to introduce a complicated code on an entirely different subject matter in this Bill would not, I think, be helping either the general level of legislation or the persons affected. I ask the Committee to give consideration to the point I have made that a flexible procedure will really help people in this case and that the words we have devised—and I am taking into account, as the Statute allows us to do, the Amendment that will be moved by my right hon. Friend in this regard—will give us the most satisfactory and flexible procedure in this case.

:I listened with great care to what my hon. and learned Friend has said but I am not in the least convinced that his argument is either sound or right. I would like to deal with it in the same order as he put forward his points. First, he adduced the old argument with which this Committee is very familiar—we had it on the Town and Country Planning Bill—about the difficulty of service upon the persons interested. We threshed that out and we made provision in the Town and Country Planning Act whereby, if there was any difficulty in tracing the person interested, you could give a notice which overcame that difficulty. As far as the point with regard to occupiers was concerned, where you have requisitioned land you are going to acquire in the possession of the Government the service of notice on the occupier serves no useful purpose. Upon that we agree; it may be a pure waste of time.

This Bill, which we have been asked to approve, gives far wider powers than that. As I understand Clause 13 it gives the power of acquisition even although the requisition may have ceased, so that at the time the power of acquisition is sought to be utilised the Government are no longer in possession. Furthermore, what is the position with regard to the acquisition of neighbouring land which has never been in the Government's possession? There will be an occupier of that land and there is no reason why he should not be given notice in the same way that the President of the Board of Trade proposes to give notice in the event of the acquisition of land under the Distribution of Industries Bill. We are asked to say, "It is all right to leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give notice."

:I must correct my hon. Friend on this point. It is not the Chancellor who will handle these individual transactions at all. He is not in possession of any land.

:I wish it were. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I was forgetting, at the moment, that instead of having the Chancellor solely responsible for the acquisition of land we would have here a multiplicity of Ministers and each Minister would have to exercise his own discretion as to the best manner of informing the persons interested. There can be considerable disagreement about that between the various Ministers. What happens when someone who is interested is not given any notice and comes along and says, "My land has been taken away and has been affected by this and my factory cannot extend because of what you have done"? What will the answer be? The Minister has done all that is required of him. He has given notice in such manner as he thought best. It does not seem to me that that will do. My right hon. Friend said that we must be careful of regimentation. The regimentation to which he is objecting is the regimentation of Ministers and not of small persons, and that of Ministers is the regimentation of which I am in favour.

I cannot conceive what strength there is in the argument that what this House has approved and what was put forward by this Government in the Town and Country Planning Act and what we are going to ask this House to approve in the Distribution of Industries Bill is not the right thing to insert here. I see no reason why we should be impressed by the argument of regimentation. With regard to industrial premises in general, why should there not be just a simple plan deposited in the town hall where people can come and see where their interest lies and how they are going to be affected. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench will reconsider their attitude on this matter. A point of great principle is involved and if matters like this are to be opposed constantly throughout the Committee stage, I do not know what the consequences will be. I would like to see the Bill become an Act when it has been improved, but not in its present form. I hope that further consideration will be given to the Amendment which has been put down and to the point upon which, I think, most of us are in agreement, that we are not prepared to let this matter be left to the discretion of individual Ministers.

:It is a matter of great importance that a plan of any property which it is proposed to take, should be shown at the offices of the local authority of the district. It will generally be sufficient if a cutting from the ordnance map is placed in the office of the local authority, showing the particular land it is proposed to take. Sooner or later, there will have to be a conveyance of the property, and the plan will have to be attached to that conveyance and, therefore, no additional expense will occur. It is vital that there should be, at the office of the local authority of the district, a plan deposited which would be referred to in the notice to be given to the persons mentioned in the various Amendments that we have been discussing. It could be deposited in the office of the local authority so that there could be no doubt what land was proposed to be taken. It would not involve any additional expense, and they might as well have the map sooner than later.

:I listened closely to what the learned Solicitor-General had to say but I am still unhappy about the position with regard to the notification of local planning authorities. I have had communications upon this point from the Corporation of Edinburgh. It is not mandatory in the Bill for the Minister to inform the local planning authorities what proposals he has in view in order that the local authorities may have the opportunity of laying reasoned objections before the Minister. It is wrong, in principle, that important organisations such as a local planning authority which is composed of elected local government representatives from the various areas interested should be denied information. I ask the Minister to look at the matter again and try and strengthen the Clause, so as to ensure that local planning authorities are carried along with the Minister and are kept fully informed. Otherwise, you may get proposals put into operation by the Minister adversely affecting developments which the local planning authorities have in view in their areas. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.

:I wish to join in asking the Minister to reconsider this matter. It is of greater importance than seems to be realised. All the way through the proceedings on the Bill the Minister has dug his toes in, and given only the smallest possible concessions. He has given us a small concession here but he has not gone nearly far enough. He ought to realise, as everybody else does, how important it is that all concerned in this matter should be fully informed with regard to it and that it should not be left to the Minister. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the matter, otherwise I shall be prepared to divide against him.

:I think at least the Minister should be required, under the terms of the Clause, to give express notice to those persons whom he knows to be interested and of whose identity he has no doubt and of whose address he is aware. May I take, as an example, Sub-section (4)? In that case there is no reason why the Minister should not be required to give express notice to people who have lodged objections as a result of which he referred the matter to the Commission. There is no doubt that the Minister has all the information as to the whereabouts and the identity of those people, and in that case at least—and no doubt in others too—he should be required, in the terms of the Sub-section, to give express notice to those persons who have lodged objections when he has received the report of the Commission.

:I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accede to the request of hon. Members opposite and make this small concession. We have had not only small concessions but big concessions demanded here, and it is disgraceful to see the attitude taken up towards the question of land by hon. Members opposite who desire to protect every inch of land and to obtain every conceivable opportunity for the owners of land to get advantages at the expense of the mass of the people. I put this to the Chancellor and to hon. Members. If an attitude of this kind had been adopted when the lads of this country were being conscripted, does anyone suggest that they should have been sent maps of the areas in which they would have to fight? That is the sort of attitude taken by hon. Members on these Amendments—a most meticulous desire that everything conceivable shall be done in the interests of the landlords regardless of the interests of the country. I am certain that when the lads who were conscripted come back and see the game being played by Tory landlords and the representatives of Tory landlords, when it is a question of the land of the country, they will have something to say, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make no concession at all in this case.

:I would not have intervened at all except for the last remarks of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I think he has entirely missed the object of the Bill. I have no doubt in my own mind that what everybody in this Committee wants is to be as fair as possible to anyone who is interested in land.

:We would ask the owners of land to show their title deeds and to show those who have no title deeds what they paid for the land. They should not get a bean more than they paid for it.

4.30 p.m.

:I think it is undoubtedly in the minds of the majority of the Committee that we are trying to be fair to those who have an interest in the land in question. That being so, I do not see any reason why the Solicitor-General should not pay attention to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). The form of that Amendment has already appeared in two Acts, and it is well known that when a conveyance is drawn up the most essential safeguard for the property concerned is that a map should appear in the conveyance. I ask the Minister to see that greater notice is taken of the point in that Amendment, because it would save a great deal of dispute later on. That is what some Members wish to avoid with regard to the acquisition of land, even if it is at the fair price that the hon. Member for West Fife wants instead of by confiscation. Under Subsection (4) notice has to be given to those who are interested in the land and it ought not to be difficult to give notice to those who appear to be interested. We ought to take every step, in view of the revolutionary nature of the Bill, to see that no injustice is done to anyone interested in the land.

:I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter. All that is being asked is that foreknowledge should be able to be acquired by those who will be affected by this legislation. Foreknowledge of what is to happen is one of the things we have to look after in this House. Foreknowledge of service to which the citizen is liable was one of the points we had to watch carefully when compulsory service was introduced. For that reason, we were careful to see that a man who had to serve his country got due notice of his obligations. All that is being asked by these Amendments is that those affected or who may be affected, should have foreknowledge of what is to happen. We should lay down some minimum provision and, coupled with it, a wider discretion should be left to the Ministers concerned to use further measures of publicity in each case. We should insist on some minimum provision so that some standard of publicity is established.

:Earlier I thought this discussion was going to resolve itself into a contest between lawyers on a matter of procedure, and I had hoped to be able to stand aloof. I think, however, that I had better see at this stage whether there is anything that I can contribute. It seems to me that there is no difference of view in regard to the purpose that the critics of this Clause and the Government wish to achieve. We all want, when it is proposed to acquire land, to ensure that knowledge of the intention is effectively conveyed to those concerned—concerned either because they have a direct interest, what I may call a proprietary interest in the land, or because of some wider responsibility and interest, as in the case of a local planning authority or commons preservation society or whatever it may be. It seems to me, therefore, that the matter resolves itself into a purely practical question of what is the best method. Some of my hon. Friends who have criticised the Clause have an affection for a form of words with which they are familiar in other connections in regard to the acquisition of land, and they naturally wonder why that form of words has not been thought equally appropriate in this case. Before I proceed to say why I think it has not been thought equally appropriate, I should like to say that there is also to my knowledge excellent precedent for the words in this Bill.

The reason why a wider and more general form of words, defining the purpose clearly but not specifying the method with the same precision as in the other cases, has been preferred is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General pointed out, the immense variety of circumstances in which the powers of this Bill may have to be exercised. I would like to be in a position to propose words which would ensure that every person having what I may call a proprietary interest in, the land which is to be acquired will have notice. I should be happy if I could find a form of words which would effectively define an obligation to convey specific notice of intention directly to every person having a proprietary interest. It has been pointed out to me—and this arises from the great variety of circumstances with which we have to deal—that, in the case, for example, where an interest which is being acquired affects water supply, there may be riparian owners over a wide area, all of whom may be affected and whose identity cannot possibly be known to the Minister concerned. That is only one illustration. We must, if we replace words in the Bill, replace them by words which are effective. I do not know what form of words would really separate one type of proprietary interest from another. The notice will be published in the manner which will most effectively bring the intention to the knowledge of those concerned. I would be glad if that could be supplemented by some more precise obligation. I am ready to consider this again to see if we can improve on the words.

There is one change which would be of value which I can offer now. It would be reasonable that the Government should undertake an obligation to communicate any proposed acquisition, with a suitable map, to the local planning authority. I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning to see whether arrangements can be made administratively to have the notice made available with the map to those who may be interested. That would go some way to meet the desire that has been expressed, and I am prepared here and now to accept an obligation in that sense. Without abandoning the general words in the Clause, which are of great importance and which put the general obligation on the Minister so to act as effectively to convey his intention to those concerned, I will consider whether we can go a little further, or perhaps a long way further, to identify the person to whom individual notice has to be given. I will consider that. If it can be done without putting an impossible or unreasonable obligation on the Minister it shall be done on the Report stage. At this stage, we will include an obligation to communicate the intention of the Minister with a suitable map to the local planning authority. That, I am afraid, is the only practical suggestion that I can make at this stage, with an earnest desire, to go as far as possible to satisfy hon. Members.

:Will my right hon. Friend say something about a notice in the local papers?

:I do not mind such publication if it is a suitable case, but in the most straightforward case of a single property, about which there is no question, it would be a little silly to require publication in a local paper.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman's proposal include notification to Uncle Tom Cobley?

:My right hon. Friend has gone a long way to meet us, but not quite as far as we should like. I would ask him whether, in considering the matter, he will have a conversation with some of us who are interested. In view of his obvious desire to meet us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 48, leave out, "the persons having interests in the land," and insert "persons interested."—[ Mr. Peake. ]

In page 5, line 1, after the words last inserted, insert "and the local planning authority."—[ Commander Galbraith. ]

In page 5, line 3, leave out "one month," and insert "three months."

In line 5, leave out

"by any person claiming to be a person, having such an interest."—[ Mr. Peake. ]

In line 6, at end, insert "and the local planning authority." — [ Commander Galbraith. ]

4.45 p.m.

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, at end, insert:

"Provided that all members of the public who give notice of their intention to object in a form to be prescribed by the Commission shall be deemed to have an interest in the land for the purpose of this Section."

I can put this point in a very few words. It is that if there is an objection on the ground of an amenity, it shall not be ruled that some individual or body such as the C.P.R.E., which is concerned on the grounds of amenity, shall be deemed to have no locus standi in the matter because it has no interest in the land.

:My hon. Friend's Amendment would have the effect of admitting any member of the public on any application to the Commission, upon any grounds. Whilst we are anxious that local planning authorities, and recognised amenity societies and so forth, should have access to the Commission, in cases where there is objection or dispute, I think it would be going too far to allow any busybody to come in upon any case, and raise an objection. I would ask my hon. Friend, therefore, not to press this Amendment.

:With regard to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just put, if he is unable to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, would he say that under the processes of this Bill, societies concerned with amenity will be able to obtain full representation should they require it on those occasions where those interests are or may be endangered?

:In a few moments I shall move an Amendment which will deal with that point.

:In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after "objection," insert "either—( a )."

The object of this Amendment is to implement the pledge given by my right hon. Friend to the effect that local authorities interested in planning considerations, and the recognised societies or bodies concerned with the preservation of amenities, should have a right of objection and the right of audience before the Commission. I think the words fully carry out my right hon. Friend's pledge.

:I desire to record my cordial appreciation of the way in which the Chancellor has met us on this point.

Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, after "land," insert:

"or—

( b ) in a case where it appears to him that the proposals will or may affect amenities enjoyed by the public, by a local authority or by a society or body having as its object or one of its objects the preservation of such amenities being a society Or body the character and membership of which is such that it is, in his opinion, proper that their views should be considered."

:Would my right hon. Friend tell me whether the bodies referred to in the Amendment include forestry societies and similar bodies? Obviously, I should think, it affects the National Trust and the C.P.R.E.

:I cannot give a ruling on particular instances, but I should have thought the words

"having as its object or one of its objects the preservation of such amenities"

would admit a fairly wide range of bodies who are concerned with the question of amenities.

:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, at end, insert "the progress of scientific research or."

In recent years there have sprung up problems not of amenity but of scientific research. I believe that what I have to say will cover the point raised by my night hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). In order to make my point clear, may I say that one of the bodies I have in mind is the Nature Reserve Investigation Committee? The question of water reserves in this country is very grave and will become vital. The future use of the land which may be menaced or altered by Government Departments may have very serious effects on water conservation in England. If I may give another illustration, there is at present in this country a large body of opinion which says there should be both nature reserves and, in certain scheduled areas, an investigation of the flora and fauna population and their changes during a long period of years. This is a scientific matter which cannot be determined in a short period of time. It may be that in some of the scheduled areas there has already been periodic scientific investigation for a period of 10 years. The change in the life of the flora and fauna may be a matter for investigation over 50 years. Unless these words are included it will not be open to such scientific bodies to object to any Government Department's plans for a particular part of land, because they are not an amenity body. Knowledge of the habitat of the wire worm plays a very important part in agriculture. I am also concerned with scientific problems with regard to the Zoological Research Council and the Nature Investigation Society. In view of that explanation, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept these words, which will not harm his Bill and which will add materially to its value.

:The Committee is proceeding with its labours in a genial mood this afternoon, and I am happy to say that here is another Amendment which the Government can accept. Not long ago there was a letter in "The Times," I believe from Lord Macmillan and others, on behalf of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, and they drew attention to the fact that one of the possible effects of this Bill would be that the habitats of certain rare bugs or beetles might be prejudiced by the new use to which the land might be put. We are anxious that scientific investigation affecting such things as bugs and beetles should be duly considered, and we will accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, although it may necessitate some consequential amendment as to the nature of the bodies which will have a right of audience before the Commission. That point, of course, can be considered before we reach the Report stage.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended, in line 5, leave out "his opinion," and insert:

"the opinion of the Commission."

May I offer my gratitude to the Financial Secretary for the way in which he dealt with my last Amendment? This Amendment deals with all those bodies which will have a right to object. Who is to determine whether a certain body is a fit and proper body to make an objection? According to this Bill, there will be one single Commission, but there will be numerous Government Departments taking action. I submit that the people who should determine which is a fit and proper body to appear before the Commission is the forum itself—the Commission—and not the Minister. It is not a very great thing to ask, and I do ask the Financial Secretary to retain the genial mood which he adopted on the previous Amendment to the Amendment and to accept this one also.

5.0 p.m.

:I am afraid I cannot meet my hon. Friend as I was able to do on the last Amendment. At the stage represented by Sub-section (2), the matter has not yet reached the Commission. The Sub-section deals with the receipt of objections by the Minister, and it follows therefore that the only person who can form an opinion as to whether the objection comes from a body which falls within the terms of the Amendment which has just been moved into the Bill must be the Minister. It would surely open the procedure to every sort of obstruction if we were to admit objections from all comers, as was suggested in a recent Amendment. In the second place, if we were to refer to the Commission the question of whether any particular body of individuals, or individual, was of sufficient status to justify the case as a whole being referred to the Commission, it would mean passing over to the Commission every notice of objection which was received, for them to give a ruling upon it.

There may be all sorts of little local bodies of people, very often of no substantial character and not representing anybody except themselves, who might put forward frivolous objections. Having moved into the Bill these new words which enable all recognised bodies of substantial standing to object and appear, the Committee must be content to allow the Minister to ignore objections which come neither from people having any interest in the land involved nor from any recognised body interested in either amenity or the progress of scientific research. Therefore I would ask my hon. Friend to say that this is not a proper procedure, because it would mean the Commission itself having to handle every objection in the first instance.

:I can quite see the merit of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, as the Bill is at present drafted, but if we look at the next Sub-section we find that, the matter having been referred to the Commission, that Commission is then debarred entirely from hearing any new people. Although the Financial Secretary has presented a satisfactory argument in regard to this Sub-section, the next Sub-section ought to be amended so that if, after the matter has been referred to the Commission, somebody else desires to tender evidence, that somebody should be permitted so to do.

:We had better not discuss the next Sub-section until we get to it.

:I quite appreciate that this point will be raised on a later Amendment, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."

:The Committee are probably aware that where land is reserved by local authorities, under Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the authorities are allowed by that Section to make agreements with owners for the preservation, in the natural state, of areas of ground. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether they are covered by this Amendment. The matter affects a very large proportion of the South Downs, some 30,000 acres, and the local authority is anxious to know whether it is covered by the Amendment or not. I very much appreciate the presentation of the Amendment, and I should be very grateful to the Financial Secretary if he could let me have an answer.

:I should have thought, in the case which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, that the local planning authority, would be the body concerned, as they are expressly given the right of audience before the Commission.

:The local authority would like to be quite satisfied as to whether they are covered.

:I am afraid that I did not quite hear to what authority my hon. and gallant Friend referred.

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, after the first "by," insert "them or by."

In the course of this Committee stage we have heard many references to protection afforded to the interests of commons or to private interests by the Commission, and it is a shock on reading Sub-section (3) to find that the inquiry into these matters can only be heard by persons appointed by the Commission and not by the Commission themselves. I am not going to suggest that there will be many cases where it would be proper, or economical in time, for the Commission to hear an application, but though it would be broadly more convenient in a small matter to send an inspector down to hold a local inquiry, there will be cases where a large area of land is involved or where matter of great public interest is raised. It may be a question of taking a large common, or of a number of small private owners of factories being dispossessed. It would be far better for the Commission themselves to hold the inquiry in such a case. All we are asking is that three members of the Commission should go down and take the public inquiry. It is a reasonable request and it is one that the Commission can accept or reject as they choose. We should, however, give them the power to hold the inquiry themselves.

:I support the Amendment. The point seems to be quite simple. We do not seek in any way to impose some duty upon the Commission but rather to give them the power, where they consider that the subject matter is of sufficient importance, themselves to hear the inquiry and obtain local knowledge of the facts of the case. Reference has been made to big public issues; I feel that wherever common land, for example, is to be permanently acquired for aerodromes, on those occasions the Commission should have the power to go down to the particular locality and hold a public inquiry there. Without this power the Commission will consider themselves merely a static body in London. They will sit here and receive written reports. They may perhaps ring up their local inspector, but that is the nearest approach to a local atmosphere that they will get. I really cannot see any reason why the Government should not accept the Amendment.

:If I followed the argument aright, the Amendment is put down in the belief that the Commission have not power at present to hear oral evidence, but that point is covered in Clause 2 (3) which says that, in considering any matters referred to them under the provisions of the Bill,

"the commission shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, cause such inquiries to be made, and give to such persons such opportunities of making oral or written representations, as the Commission think fit, cause a local inquiry to be held."

The Sub-section with which we are concerned—that being a general power—says that before reporting, the Commission

"shall, in the course of their inquiries, afford to any person who made any such objection as is referred to in the last preceding sub-section an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by them, whether at a public local inquiry or otherwise."

The Amendment would seek to say: "being heard by them or by a person appointed for the purpose by them." Under their general powers of allowing all representations to be made to them, I quite agree that there are occasions in which that would be the proper procedure and in those cases we will no doubt adopt it. They already have the power, and therefore I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

:The Attorney-General says that the Commission have the power, so quite clearly they can appoint themselves.

:I have read it. There they have the power to cause an inquiry to be made, but not to hold the inquiry, which is rather different. When you cause it to be made you instruct somebody else to do it. Any ordinary person reading these words would act on the assumption that Parliament was instructing the Commission to hold an inquiry by persons appointed by them, and not for the Commission to hold the inquiry themselves. I do not think the Bill will give to the Commission the direction which the Amendment requires, which is that in some cases they themselves should hold the inquiry and not cause it to be held by a person appointed by them.

:I would like to bring one point to the notice of the Attorney- General. My hon. Friend is attempting to put words into the Bill which cannot mar its general effect, but remind the Commission that one of its duties will be to go and see for themselves and hold a public inquiry. Clause 2, as I see it, does not do that at all. It merely tells the Commission that it may cause an inquiry to be made. I do not believe that the Attorney-General has answered the point and I cannot see any reason why he does not accept the Amendment.

:The words in Sub-section (3) are not only misleading but are possibly more far-reaching than at first appears. Is it not possible that they may have the effect of limiting the words in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 in so far as the matters dealt with in Clause 8 are concerned?

5.15 p.m.

:The Sub-section we are considering is mandatory. It says that in any case the Commission must allow a person to be heard by a person appointed for the purpose:

"whether at a public local enquiry or otherwise."

That is mandatory. My hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment does not extend that, because to say:

"by them or by a person …"

means that they can still fulfil the terms of the Sub-section by appointing a person. I think it is right that the mandatory Subsection should be restricted. There must be a hearing before someone. Under their general powers, and if they think it is a matter for the Commission to hear an objector, they have full power to do so under Clause 2 (3).

:I think that much of the drafting of this Bill is obscure, and this is an instance of it. The point I want the Attorney-General to consider, between now and the Report stage—I do not think it is clear as the Bill is now drafted—is that local inquiries can be held by the Commission. I had always appreciated that under Clause 2 the Commission could have before them all the objectors. I am anxious to get the Commission to go to the spot and hold a local inquiry. The Attorney-General has made a promise that this matter will be looked into between now and the Report stage. If these words are not necessary at a later stage we shall not ask for them to be inserted. I believe that re-drafting of Clause 2 (3) and Clause 8 (3) is necessary. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, leave out from "appointed," to end of Sub-section, and insert:

"by them to hear and consider the case in public whether at a public local inquiry or otherwise."

I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree that publicity is essential if there is to be public confidence in inquiries. I hope he will agree that in the case of this Commission, which the Government say they intend shall be responsible and independent, and shall enjoy the confidence of the country, these inquiries will be held in public, whether it is a local inquiry or otherwise.

:I think that the next two Amendments can be discussed on this one, if that is agreeable—

In page 5, line 19, leave out "whether."

In page 5, line 20, leave out "or otherwise," and insert:

:The purpose of those Amendments standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members is the same as that of my hon. Friend, but goes a little further. We suggest that the public inquiry should be held under the methods laid down by Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which relates to the power of Government Departments to direct inquiries. It is the same point, and I support the Amendment.

:With regard to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has moved, I do not think he was here when my Noble Friend raised a corresponding Amendment on Clause 2 (3). Therefore, I would remind the Committee that we discussed this problem and that I indicated to the Committee, with whom it found favour, that although there might be many cases in which a public inquiry was the suitable procedure, and in that case the Commission could fix that method, there were other cases which approximated so nearly to the individual purchase of land by the Crown from one person, who being engaged in industry on that land would not want all the matters to be dealt with in public, that there might be very good reasons—it has no sinister connotation—for that person not wanting his private affairs discussed in public. It was thought better to leave it to the discretion of the Commission whether it should be public or not. We discussed that on Clause 2 (3), and that view commended itself to the Committee at that time.

The point which arises now is not a different one, and I desire to summarise shortly the argument and the reasons why the Committee accepted it. We are discussing the same point in almost exactly the same connotation, and I do not think the Committee would be likely to take a different view from that taken on the earlier Clause. There are very similar examples, which I instanced, where the procedure of publicity is not wanted, such as the procedure at present in force among the various Commissioners of Income Tax. There may be some cases in which that is appropriate. There are others in which an inquiry would be appropriate, and I suggest that we should leave it to the Commission to decide, according to the nature of the question being discussed.

:Could the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an example of the sort of reasons for which, under this Bill, privacy is desirable, so that we may know what he has in mind?

:The reason I have in mind relates to the Crown acquiring a single site on which a business is being carried on. The entrepreneur who is carrying on the business does not want it acquired because of the effect on his business, and wishes to put forward facts and figures showing the financial position of that business, which may involve not only his overhead expenses but his costings, without disclosing them to competitors. In that case it might reasonably be said that it is a matter which the Commission may think can be dealt with privately, because there is only the Government Department and the owner of the business involved—there is no public amenity interest or planning interest, or anything of that kind—and that he should have the same protection as under the procedure in regard to tax assessments.

:I owe the Committee an apology for not having known that this matter was raised previously. I have been reasonably assiduous in attending, but I have not been here the whole time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, at end, insert:

"(4) Where objection to the proposals or any of them is made to the Commission on the ground that the proposals or any of them are not in accordance with national or local interests or requirements as to planning or amenities and the Commission, though not satisfied that the objection should be upheld, are of opinion that it is substantial, the Commission shall notify the Minister of Town and Country Planning accordingly and shall, before reporting to the Minister who made the proposals, consider any information or representations put before them by or on behalf of the Minister of Town and Country Planning."

This is an Amendment under which, when objections are put before the Commission on planning or amenity grounds, and the Commission feel that they are substantial, though not necessarily conclusive, they can notify the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and will get his assistance, through information or representations, before reporting to the Minister who made the proposals. Now that we have a Minister of Town and Country Planning these considerations are, of course, represented by him in the Government, but it seemed to my right hon. Friend that there might well be cases in which the Commission would be assisted if they could obtain representations and information from him, when what is, in their opinion, a substantial planning or amenity objection to the proposal is put before them.

:I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, leave out "and."

I am quite in agreement with the object of the Attorney-General in moving his Amendment, but the local authorities by whom I am asked to put this point are not satisfied that the Amendment is strong enough in its operation. They think it is not adequate to safeguard the planning interests or powers which they think the Minister of Town and Country Planning should have. There are three other Amendments to the proposed Amendment standing in my name, which are all linked with this one. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to read what the Amendment moved by the Attorney-General would be, if amended in the way I am desirous of amending it. It would read as follows:

5.30 p.m.

:I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning would be gratified at the confidence which the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) shows in him by giving him, in effect, the final word on these issues. But on consideration, I do not think, and I hope the Committee will agree, that this would really be right. The Minister of Town and Country Planning is, of course, concerned, with his other colleagues, in action taken by the various Government Departments. It is our intention that he should have the fullest voice in all these matters. The effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment would be to give him the final veto over proposals which one of his colleagues has put forward, and to which, to that extent, he was a party. Various Amendments have been put into the Bill to emphasise what my right hon. Friend attaches the greatest importance to, namely, that the Commission should regard planning and amenities as one of the most important considerations in dealing with any proposals which are brought before them. We think that that is the best safeguard, and I think that my hon. Friend would agree that the proposal that he makes is a rather curious one. In effect, you start with a proposal by the Government, and then you give one member of the Government the right to veto it at a later stage. We do not think that that would be regarded as an acceptable procedure, and we think that these interests are better safeguarded by leaving these matters to the Commission, emphasising, as we have done in more than one part of the Bill and again in this Amendment, the importance of these considerations, and that the Commission should have the fullest opportunity of getting the fullest possible representation upon them.

:Will the Attorney-General give consideration to the statement which I made, which I think is correct, that the Amendment would not put the matter finally into the hands of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but that a Minister who wished to make an application would have power to proceed under Clause 9, Sub-section (6)?

:That only underlines the constitutional objection which exists to this proposal. You would then have one Minister vetoing the proposal at one stage, and another saying: "In spite of my right hon. Friend thinking it all wrong, I am going to give a certificate, and ask Parliament not to pass a negative resolution." I think I have analysed the position fairly, and I do not think this would be a practical scheme.

:It is giving one Minister full powers, and I want the position to be that if two Ministers disagree the matter should come before this House.

:I must support the Attorney-General. When Ministers have to do dirty work they should do it behind the scenes, and not before the House.

:I do not want any dirty work. I do not think I have much support, and therefore, although I still think that my Amendment would be desirable, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 21, after "Minister," insert "who made the proposals."—[ Sir J. Anderson. ]

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, leave out from "him" to end of Sub-section, and insert:

"desirable and shall send a copy thereof to all persons who gave notice of objection."

I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. It provides merely that a person who gives notice of objection to proposals shall get a copy of the Report of the Commission. As the Bill stands, it is left completely to the discretion not of the Commission but of the Minister who initiates the proposals. Sub-section (4) says:

"On receiving the report of the Commission, the Minister shall forthwith publish it in such manner as appears to him best adapted for informing the persons having interests in the land."

I desire the latter part of that to read as follows:

"… in such manner as appears to him desirable and shall send a copy thereof to all persons who gave notice of objection."

A number of people may give notice of objection, and, with that notice, give in writing their grounds for objection. They may not attend the inquiry if one is held, because the result of attending the inquiry might be that they were penalised in costs. It seems to me that people who give notice of objection should get a copy of the Report of the Commission, just as, when you acquire land under the Town and Country Planning Acts, if an order for the acquisition of the land is made a copy of that order is sent to everyone who gives notice of objection. It is not everyone who can give that notice. I need not refer to Clauses which have been under consideration quite recently, but notice of objection can be given only by a limited class of persons interested. There is no danger of placing an enormous burden on the Minister: all my Amendment seeks to do is to let people who give notice of objection have an opportunity of seeing the Report of the Commission.

:This proposal was brought forward with great care on the Town and Country Planning Bill, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to go as far as the Minister went on that occasion. It is only a person who gave notice that he is interested who would receive a copy of the Report. There is no burden placed on the Minister to discover people who may not be able to attend because they are abroad, or something of the sort, and no obligation to find out where they are, or to whom to send a copy.

:There may be a number of cases where people put in objections, and, as my hon. Friend says, do not subsequently appear before the Commission. We had rather hoped that the Committee would agree that it would be a pity to put in words which, if there was some slip, might be said—I do not know what their legal effect would be—to invalidate the proceedings. There are many precedents—judgments of courts and so on—where you do not have an expressed provision that a copy is to be sent to everybody affected, but people who are interested take steps to find out; and here we place on the Minister an obligation to publish. However, we will look into this question. I was not present at an earlier stage when a somewhat similar problem was raised. We are anxious to avoid putting in words which, if there was an accidental slip, which of itself did no harm, might raise some question about the whole thing being invalidated. If you have a mandatory obligation to publish, anyone who is really interested is going to see that he finds out what the Commission's Report is, and we think that, with the Amendment we are just coming to, there is no positive danger of anybody who is interested not being able to find out. But I will look into the matter, in the light of what was said on a previous point.

:I am not sure that I understood what my right hon. and learned Friend said. First, is it a fact that a technical hitch in the method employed by the Commission may invalidate the entire proceedings of the Commission? My second question concerns a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). Suppose an objector puts forward some fairly substantial objection to the Commission; will he be liable for part of the costs of the proceedings? That would make a very serious obstacle, if the objectors were not men of great substance, to their appearing before the Commission. In that case, the possibility of getting a copy of the Report assumes a great deal more importance than otherwise.

:On the first point, I do not want to express a final opinion; but where you put into an Act a provision that something must be done there is always an argument, if it is not done, that you have not fulfilled a condition precedent, and that, therefore, the proceedings should be invalidated. The court may say that it is not really a condition precedent, but only a direction; but the fewer possibilities there are of arguments of that sort, the better. My impression is that everybody will know about the decision, as people will be waiting for it. There is a mandatory obligation to publish, but we are prepared to see whether that may be unsatisfactory.

:I do not think that the analogy of a judgment in a court between parties to litigation is a true one. I would ask the Attorney-General to see whether there ever has been a case where an Order for the acquisition of land under any Act has been held to be invalidated because a notice ordered to be served on people interested has not been served. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance that the matter will be subjected to further consideration; and, in view of that, I desire, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 23, leave out "the persons having interests in the land," and insert "persons interested."—[ Sir J. Anderson. ]

5.45 p.m.

:The next Amendment which I propose to call is that of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinching-brooke), in page 5, line 24, at end, to insert:

"and shall send a copy thereof to all persons who appeared before him or at any such inquiry as is referred to in the preceding Sub-section."

:Would it be in Order, Mr. Williams, to discuss on this Amendment the Amendment standing in my name?

:As none of the hon. Members whose names are down to the Amendment which you have indicated, Mr. Williams, are in their places, and this Amendment is one that ought to be discussed, may I be allowed to move it?

:I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (5).

This is one of the cases where the Government, by their Bill, are excluding from the purview of the Commission an objection, by a private interest or a body or society, to the land being taken by a Government Department. Let me say at once that I have noticed that the Chancellor has excluded the common from that, and I am grateful to him for that exclusion, but, in my submission to the Committee, it would be wrong that we should exclude from the Commission industrial premises, merely on the ground of the fact that some Government Department had made an addition to the structure at some time during the war, and that the President of the Board of Trade certified that it was in the interests of the transition from war to peace conditions that this land should be taken by the Government Department. The effect of this Sub-section is to make absolute the reign of bureaucracy. It allows any Government Department to do what it likes with a great amount of industrial land in this, country, and nobody shall have any right of objection. In my submission, it is making a farce of the Commission. This is a case where one small private business in involved, in which the Government, or it may be some large combine, is to take over under this Sub-section (5), and there is no appeal.

I think that here is a case where Parliament should make its voice quite clear to the Government. We have suffered in this country from these great powers reposed in Government Departments in this war. Business men in all our constituencies have suffered a great deal during the emergency, and I am sure that now is the time when we should declare, with no uncertain voice, that we shall not tolerate industrial premises being removed from the Commission. I, therefore, ask the President of the Board of Trade, who I believe is to reply, to realise that the view I am voicing to-day represents a deep and widespread feeling throughout the country. All who have read this Bill have felt that their premises were endangered, although the President of the Board of Trade may defend the words which have been put in this Bill.

:I think that these words ought to go. Here is a Bill for the purpose of disentangling the trouble which the war has created. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, disentangling in part. Here is a power taken by the Government to say, in respect of any building which will fulfil these three conditions, and they will affect probably 90 per cent. of any kind of productive building put up during the war, that the President of the Board of Trade can cut the whole Bill into fragments, if he has this power. Let the President send a certificate to the Commission, but why should not the Commission have an opportunity of considering the merits and of hearing the case for the retention of the buildings and for depriving the original owner of the right to the land? Why should it not be the subject of inquiry? Why should it be a purely arbitrary decision by the Minister? It seems to me to be the most absolute deprivation of justice to the masses of the people. It must not be thought that these things affect mainly the rich people; they affect all sorts of people and people of all ranges of income. I think this Sub-section is about the worst Sub-section in the whole Bill.

:The implications contained in this Subsection seem to me so perfectly frightful that I am afraid I have either misread it, or misunderstood it. The President of the Board of Trade knows full well that, when it comes to the future development of industry, I would be on his side. This Sub-section, by giving the President power to have the matter completely taken out of the hands of the Commission, may do the gravest injury to industry in the future. I would like to give illustrations, not actual instances, but things which might happen through war developments. If a firm, before the war, had purchased additional land for subsequent development, and intended to develop it at the earliest opportunity, and if the Government Department said to such a firm, "You have a waste patch of land and you have also got a big machine shop efficiently managed; we would like you to put down a shell factory or a factory for making aeroplane parts, or some such undertaking," and the firm agrees to establish it at the Government expense, unless I have misread this Sub-section, the President of the Board of Trade, by issuing a certificate, can take over that land and will do so in the public interest, and thereby deprive the firm of the opportunity of developing the land for the purpose for which they originally purchased it.

By doing that, of course, I quite see that the President will be enabled to dispose of the factory, which at present belongs to the Crown, and, possibly, thereby ensure continuity of employment for a certain number of people, but he will also be stopping or cramping the development by the firm which originally bought it, and will put out of employment those people who would have benefited by the development of the firm. I am perfectly sure that, in many parts of the country to-day, this is a very real and not an imaginary objection. I know of one instance in which, because of certain circumstances, this may prove a very serious handicap to a very desirable undertaking. Therefore, unless we get a completely convincing reply from the Treasury Bench, ready as I am to support the Government in and out of season, I shall certainly have to support this Amendment.

:I am very desirous to see an orderly transition from war to peace, and also to assist, so far as I can, the policy of the Government for the development areas. But one is a little worried about this proposal. I want to put a point on which the Government may be able to reassure us. At present, owing to war conditions, certain factories or industries have had to go out of production, or damp down production to a very small scale. In these circumstances, the Government have gone into their premises, and taken a site in the middle of their works, or in an essential part of their works, and have there put up a factory. When the war is over, the normal industry carried on there will be revived, and, if you throw open this part in the middle, you may put the whole business out of gear and out of commission. I am not giving an unofficial illustration; there is a particular instance, about which I have knowledge, in my own constituency, where it would be rather disastrous. The Government have spent a certain amount of money upon this building, and, if it were taken away, the rest of the work would be seriously affected. I know how anxious the President of the Board of Trade is to help in any development, but it is no good helping on the one hand, if you are destroying on the other. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point which has worried me, and I know other hon. Members, and give some answer which will remove our fears.

:I would like—I think for the first time in this Committee stage—to support the Government on this Amendment. I can quite see that, in regard to the transition from war to peace, where you have put up a war production factory, to get that factory used for civil production purposes, you may require to lease it or sell it. In either of those events, you require to be able to give a title. Without this Bill you may not have a title to give and so use for civil production purposes may be delayed. It is right that there should be some accelerated procedure so that civil production may be facilitated. There are Amendments on the Order Paper in my name which, I hope, it will be in order to discuss now. I do not like the idea that any Minister of the Crown can, by certificate, by-pass this Commission, of whose independence and finality we have been so often reminded, and the effect of the Amendments in my name—I will not refer to them in detail—is that, where the President of the Board of Trade gives a certificate in accordance with the provisions of this Sub-section, the effect of that certificate will not be that the Commission is by-passed, but that the Com- mission must give priority to the consideration of the proposals covered by that particular certificate. It seems to me that, if you do that, you will do a lot to meet the contention of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and others who have spoken against the Subsection as it now stands.

I have another Amendment to provide that, where a certificate is given by the President of the Board of Trade, there is an accelerated procedure. Instead of three months in which notice of objection can be lodged, my Amendment would give 28 days. That period is taken from the Town and Country Planning Act, in which we also had an accelerated procedure. It may well be that even that period is too long, and I am quite prepared, if the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment, to agree that the period should be cut down further. The persons interested in the disposal of an existing factory are likely to be limited in number, and if the notice is published in the local Press, seven days should suffice for lodging notice of an objection. In the majority of cases I do not suppose there will be any objection, because this Sub-section only deals with a very limited number, but if there is an objection it can be given without any delay at all in the matter of procedure. I suggest that the proper procedure is not a certificate by-passing the whole Commission, but a certificate compelling the Commission to give immediate attention to these particular proposals.

6.0 p.m.

:I am deeply impressed with the necessity of clearing up the industrial situation as quickly as possible. There are manufacturers wanting works which have been erected in the country and it is desirable that we should clear up the situation as quickly as possible. That is in the interests of the work-people and of the employers because, in some cases at any rate, an extremely confused and chaotic situation exists. My hon. Friend's objections to this Amendment have, I think, been to some extent met by the Amendment which I understand we may discuss—the Chancellor's Amendment regarding the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Amendment in my name dealing with the concurrence of the Minis- ter of Agriculture. At the same time, there is a great deal to be said for trying to get some appeal, and I wonder whether there could not be some form of shortened procedure because time is very important in this matter. Could not one Commissioner be appointed especially for this purpose, to see that no injustice arises? Personally, I do not believe that in a great many cases it will be necessary. The cases I know of, and I am practically concerned in two or three such cases, are instances in which I am quite sure there will be no appeal. But some Government Department with power to clear up the situation and clear it up quickly is required. I hope that when the President deals with this Amendment he will give us some hope of some shortened form of procedure by which, in certain urgent cases, there might be an appeal.

:I support my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in his proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) says that there cannot be many of these cases, but the cases that do arise will want urgent treatment. In fact there may be cases in existence already, in which war works have ceased and which ought to be dealt with forthwith. These cases are severely restricted. They have to be on land which has to be acquired as part of industrial premises; they, in substance, owe their existing character to Government war work, and, in the interests of orderly transition from war conditions to peace, the Crown should be able to dispose of them. There are, therefore, three conditions, and so the number of factories concerned is bound to be limited. That being so, and in the interests of the quick but orderly transition from war to peace, I believe that some accelerated procedure is needed. At the same time, I do not like the idea of the Board of Trade being left to deal with this without reference to the Commission at all, and if the Commission could be brought in, I believe it would be of benefit to industry and to the nation as a whole.

:May I re-state to the Committee, very briefly, before I comment upon some of the speeches that have been made the case for this Sub-section? The war has been conducted necessarily at high speed. There are large numbers of cases in the total where some Department or other of the Government has had at short notice to requisition—in some cases not merely to requisition but also to enter into possession—land for the urgent construction of industrial premises, in the first instance with a view to the munitions programme. We are left, therefore, with a position in which the title is imperfect from the point of view of any industrialist who desires either to lease such premises from the Government—and this is to be the normal procedure—for post-war work, or, in rare and exptional cases, to purchase the factory outright.

At the present time the Board of Trade is charged with planning the change-over from war to peace, and it is indeed true, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) said, that there are some most urgent cases already. Where we have factories which are available for peace-time work, where we have industrialists who are willing to make use of them and to employ labour, beginning with export or supply for the home market, as the case may be, it is imperative that this process shall not be delayed. I am sure that there will be agreement on that throughout the Committee. Both my hon. Friends the Members for The Hartlepools (Colonel Greenwell) and Sunderland (Mr. Furness) expressed doubts about this Subsection and, since they have intervened, I would like to point the moral by referring to their constituencies, both of which I have visited. In each case there are factories built at the time when there was a fear, which has now passed away, of what enemy air action might accomplish upon our munitions works in London, and therefore it was decided that we must, at high speed, construct alternative factories for the production of munitions in other parts of the country. They were constructed both at The Hartlepools and in Sunderland, and we have now good applicants, industrialists who would make a real contribution to employment and trade on the north-east coast in each case, but we cannot conclude a lease, although there is an industrialist very willing to take a lease from the Government.

:Would there be any chance in either of these two cases, of objections being lodged, or does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate they will go through?

:In the majority of cases—I cannot say in these two particular in- stances—I do not suppose there would be objections, but I do stress the great importance of speed in deciding, and that is the broad reason for this Sub-section being in the Bill. It is proposed to give the Board of Trade power, but that power should not often need to be used, and the mere possession of the power would frequently lead any person with an interest in the land—the owner, for example—readily to come to an arrangement with regard to selling the land to the Government. Therefore, I would like to emphasise that, as in many other cases, the possession of the power is more important than the probable exercise of the power in practice. It would prevent—I am speaking frankly—a landowner from blackmailing the Government merely because the Government, in a hurry, has had to enter upon land and construct a factory which now has considerable value for post-war trade. The number of cases in which there would be practical difficulty would, I hope, be few. I emphasise that my whole approach to this is to secure a speedy procedure for enabling these factories to be placed at the disposal of industry for post-war employment and trade and the encouragement of export. I approach it wholly from that point of view.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has supported the Government on the Sub-section and has thrown out a suggestion as to how we might obtain speed, which I understand he accepts as essential—and the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington has supported this—and also keep the Commission in the picture. I do not know, and I have no right to pronounce with precision because the appointment of the Commission now lies with the Crown, as to how speedily it would be possible to set it up, but perhaps the Committee would be willing that we should look into that. The hon. Member for Daventry has suggested seven days, with a high priority, for the lodging of objections. That is reasonably expeditious, provided the Commission itself can get working reasonably soon. As to that, I have no right to an opinion. The suggestion has been put in Debate and I would like to consider it further. If it should seem probable that the Commission could be got going pretty speedily, if this Bill could pass fairly soon through all its stages, and if there was a limit of seven days to the lodging of objections, that would be a procedure which—I do not wish to go too far at this stage—I would like to consider and see whether it would not meet the fundamental requirement which I have placed before the Committee.

I cannot pronounce finally on that now, but I certainly say that the Government could not agree to any procedure which resulted in loss of time in getting postwar trade and post-war exports going. We must have some plan. We are not wedded to any one particular detail or another, but we must have some plan which prevents delay and which prevents any exceptional case raised by some troublesome person, who is really out to do no more than get for himself much more than he is entitled to have merely because the Government, at a great crisis, erected upon his land a modern industrial building which can employ thousands of people, holding up essential trade following on the war. If that condition is met, it might well be that agreement might be reached between those who have spoken this afternoon. Therefore I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment now being discussed which proposes the elimination of Sub-section (5) altogether, and that we might be allowed to look at the matter again and see whether, on Report stage, we could bring forward such an Amendment somewhat on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Daventry, though I repeat, I must not, at this stage, be required to give a final pronouncement on the subject.

6.15 p.m.

:I am sure the entire Committee is on the side of the Government with regard to expedition, but this Bill bristles with difficulties which will apply to the entire country, and we do not like to be stampeded. I am satisfied, from my own knowledge, that the President of the Board of Trade does not want to do any injustice to any particular concern or number of people. Expedition is undoubtedly required in the transition from war to peace and we in Northern Ireland are just as much interested in this Bill as the people in this country. It is well known that the Government have taken possession of land and property in Northern Ireland, and that they have constructed buildings in perhaps even larger proportion than in England. There is one case to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee, namely, the property of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. Government Departments have entered upon their property, and have spent millions of pounds on works in connection with the war effort. Nobody objects to that; in fact, we were all delighted when the Government used land and property in Ulster for that purpose. But this case is rather exceptional, and I do not know what will happen if the Commission is by-passed. Incidentally, we do not even know whether a separate Commission will be appointed for Northern Ireland, or whether the appellants will be dragged to England, or even whether they will be allowed to come. Perhaps that will be borne in mind.

As I have said, millions of pounds have been spent on property and buildings which are absolutely useless to the Harbour Commissioners. It would be a deliberate piece of injustice to the Commissioners for the Crown to take possession of land on which they had constructed buildings, and to sell those buildings to somebody else. As I understand the Bill, that is possible. Some of this property can be used by somebody else; any Government Department has power to take possession and sell to a stranger, in spite of the fact that the land on which the property stands will be required by the Harbour Commissioners in the future. There is no question of the Commissioners handing over money—which, in any case, they have not got—in payment for buildings for which they have no use whatever. This is a serious matter, and I hope all the Ministers concerned with it will give serious attention to it.

:I think the President of the Board of Trade has completely misunderstood the point I tried to make. It may be that I put it so badly that he could not understand it and, if so, I regret it, but in any case he ignored it. I want to assure him that I am net exercised only about something which affects my constituency; I am concerned with the welfare of industry as a whole. The special point I want to make concerns the case in which part of the land of an undertaking has been used for building a war factory which the President may now dispose of, thus precluding the firm from making legitimate extensions which they might ordinarily be hoping to do as soon as conditions permitted. The President has not dealt with that point at all, and it may arise in a number of cases in all parts of the country.

:I am sorry to butt in on again on this battle of the land robbers, but it is evident from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Colonel Greenwell), who described this Sub-section as "perfectly frightful," that anything in the transition from war to peace which will lead to employment for the people of this country is of no concern to landowners.

:I was trying to make the point clear to the President of the Board of Trade.

:This Sub-section deals with industrial buildings and the President will satisfy himself that they can immediately be used by an individual, or a group of individuals, for employment. If there is such a building which can be so used, no Commission or anything else should be allowed to stand in the way. The President is not going to propose that a certain factory should be immediately disposed of, without any consideration for the landowners. They will get something—too much in my opinion. Behind all these Amendments is an attempt by the robber landowners to grab more money. Does the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools suggest that the President should tear down a particular industrial building, in order that the firm may have the opportunity of using the land for purposes for which they desired to use it before that industrial building was erected? In one or two cases that question might arise, but surely the President, if he has an offer from a firm which will use an industrial building in order to employ men and women, should have the right to deal with it. I was pleased with the first part of the President's speech, but very dissatisfied with the latter part, in which he made the suggestion of further concessions. There have been too many concessions to the land grabbers already. The time has come when this Committee should insist that no more concessions should be made. The game going on here on behalf of the landowners is intolerable.

:I do not intend to take upon myself the unequal task of trying to convince the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that the Subsection with which we are dealing has no meaning of the sort he suggests, or the equally heavy task of trying to explain to him how he misinterpreted the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Colonel Greenwell)—

:No, I am not going to give way. The hon. Member seems to be under the impression, which is entirely erroneous, that this Commission has something to do with the assessment of compensation. Nothing of the sort. Compensation is assessed by an entirely different body. Further, the hon. Member considers that this is a matter of land grabbing. If there is any land grabbing, it is Government land grabbing. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard my view on this Sub-section. His interventions do delay the progress of this Bill. To turn to what the President of the Board of Trade said, may I thank him for his undertaking to consider the proposals which I put forward, and to say that I welcome his assurance that he will give them most careful consideration? I feel sure that there is a way of devising a certificate which gives speed, and also gives the people affected, an opportunity of appearing before the Commission, and getting the whole thing through in the required time. If there is any delay he might consider allowing the prospective lessees to be trespassers for a short time.

I would like to know the position with regard to the present Amendment and a later Amendment on the Order Paper in my name? If the present Amendment is negatived, I think the Clause should not remain in its present form, although I am not quite clear what should happen then. I appreciate that the President cannot go further than he said he would go, and that he is in difficulties with regard to the Commission. In view of his offer, I think it would be a little embarrassing for the Committee to deal with the numerous other Amendments on this matter. I do not know whether he can accept the Amendments in my name, on the understanding that they can be altered or re-adapted on the Report stage. I throw that out as a suggestion for dealing with the subsequent Amendments, although if the whole matter were left over to a further stage, I should be delighted.

6.30 p.m.

:I think we have reached the point at which the Committee might come to a decision on the matter of substance we have been discussing. Hon. Members may recall that, in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, I said, quite frankly, that I regarded Clause 8 (5) as a provision which would require the strongest justification. It was put in for reasons which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has fully explaned. I have been very much impressed by the considerable measure of agreement that has disclosed itself in this discussion on the necessity for some special provision in this matter, and on the absolute need for a procedure which will not be dilatory. The President of the Board of Trade told the Committee how he views the suggestion that has been made for a reference to the commission under special conditions calculated to ensure speedy disposal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said, very frankly, that he felt in some doubt as to what would be the most convenient course to take having regard to the point we have reached. I would venture to make a suggestion. It is this, that having accepted in principle the idea of expedited procedure, which would avoid taking these transactions outside the ambit of the Commission, I now on behalf of the Government and I have had some opportunity of consulting with my right hon. Friends on the matter, give a definite assurance to bring forward at the Report stage, an amending Clause or Sub-section to take the place of Clause 8 (5), an amendment which will provide for reference to the Commission under a speedy procedure, where the President of the Board of Trade gives his certificate. Then we might, perhaps, agree not to consider any further Amendments to the Clause at this stage. We will pick up in our amending Clause, the Government Amendment excluding commons. I think that the Amendment about the special certificate of the Minister of Town and Country Planning will become unnecessary. We will look at all this and we will bring forward our proposals and I shall rely on hon. Gentlemen who have expressed their full agreement as to the necessity for expedition to facilitate the Government in getting an Amendment of that kind introduced on Report. I therefore would suggest that this Amendment which we are now discussing should be withdrawn and that we agree not to deal with any further Amendments to this particular provision at this stage.

:I am not quite sure about that. I think the Amendment should be withdrawn, because I will bring forward an Amendment which will remove this Clause and substitute another one. I think that is a tidier way of doing it and it is for those reasons that I am making these proposals.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider also the question which would have arisen on an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) on the question of leasing, of giving power to the Commission to decide on leasing rather than acquisition?

:I think that is rather outside the scope of this particular provision. We are dealing with Clause 8 (5) and I do not see how I can give an assurance on that.

:The only difference between myself and the Chancellor is entirely on a matter of procedure. In all other cases where this has happened the Government have accepted an Amendment to leave out a particular Clause or Sub-section under discussion, on the understanding that they would bring in a new Sub-section at a later stage. If you do not take that opportunity, it means that a number of Amendments some of us would have liked to discuss, will be passed over by what is really a subterfuge of agreement. I do not want to oppose the Chancellor, but in order that a precedent may be remembered in this Committee, I do suggest that this Amendment should be accepted on the understanding that the Chancellor is to bring in a new Sub-section in conformity with the opinions which have been expressed.

:I am perfectly willing to do that, if hon. Members will not take advantage of it.

:May I just say "Thank you" to the Chancellor for meeting us so well in this way?

:There is one further point that I want to raise for consideration. I accept the necessity for some accelerating procedure, but it is inevitable that when any accelerated procedure is applied some mistakes will arise, that land will be acquired and subsequently it will be discovered that the purpose for which it has been acquired has fallen through. In those circumstances I think there should be some arrangement for such land to be offered back to the original owner. So far as I can see there is no provision for that. Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing some such provision because I am quite sure that it is possible that this sort of thing will happen?

:I am afraid my hon. Friend is asking me to go too far. What he is really doing is challenging or seeking to challenge the substance of the proposal which I am not now putting to the Committee but which we are to have in the Bill on the Report stage, that is to say, a Clause providing for an expediting procedure. I am bound to assume that that procedure when we have finished with the Amendment will be one which will work satisfactorily.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Powers of Minister on receipt of report of Commission.)

:I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, leave out Sub-section (1), and insert:

"(1) Where proposals are referred to the Commission under the provision of this Act and the Commission report that such proposals ought not to be proceeded with or ought to be proceeded with only with such omissions, additions or modifications as they may specify, the Minister shall not proceed with such proposals or shall proceed therewith only in accordance with the Report of the Commission, and in such event the Minister may be ordered by the Commission to pay the costs of any proceedings incurred by the objectors.

Provided that nothing shall prevent the Minister giving notice of fresh proposals under Sub-section (1) of Section eight of this Act."

There are linked up with this Amendment certain consequential Amendments. The object of this Amendment is that the procedure under Clause 9 shall be amended so that the Minister will not have the power to override the Commission, but, on a due case, the question who is right between the Minister and the Commission will be determined by Parliament. I have been impressed throughout the Debate by the arguments of the Government on many occasions that the Commission is being appointed to hear and determine the arguments which can be produced by objectors, and in this Committee we have come to place a great reliance upon the Commission. It is a shock for some of us, I think, on reading Clause 9 to find that the powers of the Commission can be so whittled away by the Commission being overridden if the question is one under 5 ( b ) or ( c ). I think to-day the country is anxious that the Commission shall be the overriding authority in all cases, and this Amendment, which has been put down by the so-called younger Members of the Tory party, does appear to me, with perhaps some slight modification which I myself should have preferred, to meet the point. I think that Parliament is not anxious that under Clause 4 the Minister should have power to override this Commission, and I do ask therefore that the Committee should accept this Amendment and the Amendments which are linked up with it.

:I notice that my hon. Friend has moved this Amendment on behalf of his absent friends. It does raise of course, in spite of the fact that they are absent, a point of principle of great importance in the Bill, but one on which the Government advise the Committee to take the view that those who are absent did not wish to put before the Committee any arguments in favour of it. It is not out of any disrespect to the Commission or in any way minimising the great importance which the Government attach to their functions, and to the report which they shall make, that we have inserted in the Bill a provision giving the Government the power in certain circumstances to override their decisions. These cases are cases in which the Government proposal is to secure the right to use or determine the use of the works on the land. We do not anticipate that there will be many cases in which the Minister will seek to override the report of the Commission. He will have to face criticism in this House. It will not be a particularly good wicket on which to start batting. As a matter of principle we feel that it is right and necessary and appropriate that these provisions should be inserted in the Bill. Any Government which is in charge of our affairs after the war will be regarded as responsible for the orderly changeover of industry, for preventing as far as is practicable unemployment, and for seeing that industry grows up in this country under peace conditions so that we shall establish our export trade, full employment and so on.

6.45 p.m.

In order to carry out those responsibilities, they may require—and this is one of the purposes of the Bill—to use or determine the use of works which have been set up as war works. Every hon. Member is familiar with the magnitude of those works, particularly in the industrial sphere, and the importance which their use will play in the post-war-industrial development of this country. It seems to the Government that it would be wrong to say that the Commission should have a final voice, which in no circumstances could be overruled, with regard to the use of works of this kind. The Government would be able to say, "We wanted to use those works, and if they had been used there would not have been this unemployment, or that trouble ahead of us, but the Commission overruled us." Therefore, there is that constitutional matter which not only affects the Government but also the House in its control over the Government.

We felt it right that there should be in the Bill the power, where these are the reasons, for the Government, through the Minister, to overrule the decision of the Commission. My right hon. Friend proposes, as he said in his Second Reading speech, to say that not only should there be, as there always could have been, Parliamentary criticism by questions and otherwise, but that the certificate of the Minister overruling the Commission, where it is issued, should be subject to negative Resolution. Therefore, both from the point of view of the Executive and from the point of view of the House, which also has its overriding responsibility to the country as to how these industrial problems should be dealt with, I am afraid we cannot accept the suggestion embodied in the Amendment, and I advise the Committee to reject it. I hope that perhaps my hon. Friend's loyalty to his absent friends will not compel him to press the Amendment to a Division.

:If Ministers are to have this overriding power, I think this Clause, in the state in which it is likely to be after Amendment, will probably be about as good as it can be. One matter about which I feel a little troubled is whether there should be this over-riding power at all. Why is there this lack of confidence in the Minister's ability to put his proposals before the Commission? Why is it assumed or felt that there is any possibility, if on these grounds of policy the Crown ought to have the properties, that this independent Commission will not, the matter being well within its jurisdiction, come down on the side of the Government? That is the only doubt I feel—whether this power is really necessary and whether it is not a power that is taken simply out of an excess of caution in case the Minister, perhaps through bad advocacy or bad presentation of the facts, should lose the case before the Commission. I should have thought the Government could have had confidence in this Commission which they have recommended to us, and that this power could have been dispensed with.

Amendment negatived.

:I beg to move, in page 6, fine 5, leave out "or one of the grounds."

This Clause gives the Minister a very far-reaching power, and my hon. Friends and I think that this power ought only to be exercised in exceptional cases. Under the Clause, the Minister would have the right to exercise this exceptional power where the grounds for its exercise, namely, that he desired the right to use or determine the use of the works, was only incidental to other grounds upon which he desired to acquire the land in question. It seems to me that in the case of a power of such an exceptional character as this the right to by-pass the Commission is one that ought to be restricted to those cases in which the sole ground upon which the Minister desires to exercise that power is that he desires to acquire the right to use or determine the use of the works. It ought not to be open to the Minister to throw in as an additional makeweight the ground that he desires to acquire the works in order to acquire the right to use or determine the use of the works. If that ground for his action is incidental to other grounds, which may or may not be of great importance, then my hon. Friends and I think the Minister ought not to have the right to set the decision of the Commission on one side, as he would do if the Clause remains as it is. If this power of such an exceptional character is to be given to the Minister, we think its exercise ought to be restricted to cases where his sole justification for it is his desire to acquire the right to use or determine the use of the works.

:The effect of this Amendment would be that this over-riding power, which will be, in any event, I imagine, used very rarely, if at all, could be used only in cases where the only ground upon which the Minister put forward his case was the right to use or determine the use of the works; that is to say, if the Minister wanted to keep in reserve this power of coming to Parliament, with all the hazards which that would involve, he would have to elect in the first stage to put forward his case to the Commission only on one of those two grounds. But there are, of course, a good many cases where the various grounds overlap. There are sure to be cases where both the right to determine the use is sought and also a very substantial sum of public money has been spent upon the works. One can imagine cases of factories and places like cold storage premises which have been built in fairly large numbers during the war by the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Works and other Ministries. In such cases it would seem to me to be a bit hard on the Minister that he should have to make his case to the Commission on only half or part of the real grounds which he has in mind. To put the Minister in that position would be unduly to handicap him.

In my view the Minister should be free to put his full case on any of the grounds comprised in Clause 5, Subsection (1, a, b, c ), and if Government policy were involved in any one of those grounds and the Minister thought that in the interests of public policy the report of the Commission ought not to be followed, then he should be free to come to the House. I can assure hon. Members that coming to the House in order to override the Commission will not be a thing which Ministers will undertake with any keenness. They will have to present the report of the Commission which has found against them, they will have to lay a statement of their reasons for wishing to override the Commission, and at that stage any hon. Member interested—and there are bound to be hon. Members interested—can make out the full case in support of the Commission's view. Therefore, I think my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would unduly limit the Minister and that he should be free to put his case to the Commission upon what are the real grounds for acquisition which may fall under more than one of the paragraphs of Clause 5, Sub-section (1).

:Surely, it would be open to the Minister to make out his case before the Commission upon any ground that he desired to select, but if he desired to by-pass the Commission, he would be bound to select this particular ground. If he could not make out his case on that ground, surely he ought not to be entitled to by-pass the Commission.

:Under my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, if the Minister attached great importance on grounds of policy to the matter, he would have to go before the Commission and present only one half of his case. I say that that would be an undue handicap.

:My right hon. Friend the Fnancial Secretary has made an ingenuous reply to this Amendment. My right hon. Friend has spent some time at the Bar, and I want to remind him of what sometimes happens at the Bar. In order to give yourself a certain right, you add one additional charge in order to enable you to have a right of appeal. What we fear may happen in this case is that a Government Department might add this additional ground under Clause 5, Subsection (1, b ) or (1, c ) in order to enable them to have the power to override the Commission. It may be this Amendment is not the right way to tackle that danger, but I assure the Chancellor that it is a real danger. When we were dealing with Clause 5, Sub-section (1, a ), the Chancellor assured the House that in a case where the value of the works was at issue, the decision of the Commission would be approved. It would not be approved if any legal officer attached to any Department put forward either Subsection (1, b ) or (1, c ) as one of the grounds. I suggest there is a real point in this, and I ask the Government to think again about the reply that was given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I think we ought to have some assurance that this additional plea will not be used by any Government Department.

7.0 p.m.

:I hope the Government will not give way to the hon. Member's very specious pleading. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) would feel very aggrieved if he were bound in this way when he went into court. He delights in having more than one leg to stand on in stating his case. It seems to me unfair that we should try to limit the Government in this way in putting forward its case. One would almost think the Government was doing something criminal in trying to make the best of its case in the interest of the community. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not give any ground and that the Amendment will not be pressed.

:The hon. Member has missed the point altogether. There is no objection at all to the Minister making his case before the Commission but the Clause enables him to by-pass the Commission. If on one ground or on a hundred he makes his case, good luck to him. We are putting no obstruction whatever in his way, but this is a method by which he will be able to say, "The Commission has gone against me, and I am going behind the Commission."

:If the Amendment were accepted, the only case in which the Minister would have an overriding power over the Commission would be the case where he had gone to them on the ground that he wanted to use or determine the use of the property. If he put his whole case before them he would have no right to override them. If the Commission do not accept his case, if one of the grounds that he has put before them is the right to determine the use, he can override them, but you simply do away with all the power in the Clause if you accept the Amendment.

:Surely the hon. Member appreciates that, if the Minister is able to make out his case on the ground of determining the use, he can by-pass the Commission. All the Amendment says is that, if he fails to make out his case on that ground, he ought not to be entitled to by-pass the Commission merely by inserting that as one of the grounds.

:The Amendment is moved in order to take away the power from the Minister to supersede the Commission. The Minister asks for a certain power, which will be controlled by the House of Commons. The proposition is quite simple. The Minister puts his full case before the Commission. If they go against him on one ground put before them, the right to direct the use, he can override them.

:I hesitate somewhat to intervene in a discussion on which hon. and learned Gentlemen have spoken and disagreed, but it seems to me that it would be possible for the Minister always to secure the right to override the decision of the Commission, because it would become common form for him to put forward at any rate this one ground, that he wished to secure the right to use or to determine the use of the works. Whatever other grounds he put forward he could always put forward that one. If the Commission decided against him he would always be able to say that one of the grounds that he put forward was that he wished to preserve the right to use. I imagine that Ministers could always, if they so desired, automatically put this forward as one of the reasons and override the Commission. I am not sure that the Amendment is the right way to deal with it but I think it ought to be dealt with, unless the Government take the view that no great harm is done because the Minister has to come to the House—because it would be rather invidious for him to disagree with the Commission—and give his reasons, and the House can always decide against him. The House will know the reason why the Commission decided against him and it can always override the Minister. The Commission will be properly safeguarded and it is hardly likely that the Minister will incur the odium of disagreeing with the Commission arbitrarily, but it is quite clear, and it ought to be accepted, that this provision in practice gives the Minister the right to override the Commission in every single case.

:I also intervene with some diffidence in this lawyers' dispute, but it seems to me that the hon. Member who has just spoken and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) have put forward an argument which is without substance. I can quite understand that in the ordinary course of legal proceedings it may be convenient to put forward a number of alternative grounds and, when the decision is given after consideration of the case that has been made, one can afford to forget on which particular ground the case was made out. But that is not the position here. The genuineness of the case the Government have put forward if they allege that they require the works or factory for Government use, or in order that the Government may direct its use, can quite effectively be put to the test. It is impossible for the Government to put forward as a mere pretext the argument that they want to control the use or to continue to use the property and, as soon as they have succeeded in getting a favourable decision, or as soon as they have got a decision which enables them to by-pass the Commission, conveniently forget the argument that they have adduced. I submit very seriously first of all that, when the Government put forward as one of the grounds for acquiring the property that they want to continue to use it, that must in fact be a substantial and a real ground, otherwise they will be immediately shown up, by having disposed of the property and abandoned their intention, as having perpetrated an obvious fraud. They will have got their way by deliberate misrepresentation.

The substance of the Amendment is that the Government, in order to preserve their right and the right of the House to continue to use, or to control the use of the property must, as my right hon. Friend has said, decide at the earliest stage that they will attempt to justify their case without bringing in what may be a quite substantial part of their reason for desiring to acquire the property. Let me ilustrate that by a very simple case. The Government have in their possession a number of factories which have been used for the manufacture of munitions of war. They differ one from another. Some are more conveniently situated than others and some represent a greater expenditure of public money than others. The Government decide they want an additional ordnance factory of a particular type. They have to make a choice. They decide on a particular one which they intend to use. Objection is made that the use of that factory involves hardship to the previous owner. Why have the Government not gone elsewhere and taken another factory which it is suggested would have been equally useful? The Government argument may be not only that they want to use that particular factory but, because it represents a more substantial expenditure of public money, that their choice has rightly fallen on it. It would be altogether wrong and unfair, not only to the Departments concerned but to the public, that the Government should not be free to put forward that second set of considerations coming under Clause 5 (1 a ) as part of their reason for desiring to acquire the factory. If they say they want the factory in order to use it, they will have to carry their intention into effect and use it, otherwise they will have a very poor chance of getting a favourable view from the House of Commons. Having used the argument they will then, by their conduct, have shown that it was a mere lawyer's pretext. I submit that the case is fully made out against the Amendment.

:I am afraid my right hon. Friend has rather muddled me now, but I think my hon. Friend's point is very substantial. There are only three grounds that can be put forward, ( a ), ( b ) and ( c ). There seems to me, therefore, to be no reason why an alternative ground is necessary. If an alternative were put down in any single case, the Commission is by-passed. Therefore, if the Government wish at any time to by-pass the Commission, if they are frightened that a policy of some sort such as my right hon. Friend has mentioned is likely to be endangered by an adverse decision of the Commission, they will automatically put down two grounds and the Commission must be by-passed. The Chancellor did not answer that point. Are we to assume that the Government will in the majority of cases use only one ground? If that is the case, I can understand the situation, and in exceptional cases two grounds may be necessary for a reason such as that the Chancellor has given. If that is so, I shall be satisfied.

7.15 p.m.

:There has been a great deal of extremely incorrect phraseology in regard to this matter. Hon. Members have talked about by-passing the Commission and that, of course, is entirely wrong. If a case goes to the Commission there is no means whatever by which it can be withdrawn from the Commission. It is wrong to talk about by-passing the Commission and it is equally wrong to talk about overriding the Commission. It is not only an appeal from the Commission to this House, but an appeal, no doubt, that this House would take extremely seriously. If they thought the Minister responsible was using frivolous and crooked means in order to bring an appeal from the Commission to this House, the House would rightly be against him. Do not let us forget that there may be in these cases matters of the very greatest public interest. That, I understand, is the burden of many arguments here in this Chamber during the consideration of this Bill, and because they are questions of the very greatest public importance, I am convinced that it is undesirable that it should in all cases be left in the hands of the Commission to give the final decision. Commissions are no more infallible than any other body of men, and in matters of such great importance there ought to be an appeal, and the appeal should be to the most responsible body to whom an appeal could be made. I submit that there is no valid or proper objection to this Clause as it stands.

:I am sure, having listened to hon Members, that my hon. and learned Friend realises that there is something wrong with the wording at present. These words may not be the right ones but will he consider, probably later on, at another stage, having the wording changed? If the principal ground of the proposed acquisition is

"the right to use or determimne the use of works,"

we are in great danger that some Government Department might use this drafting against the interests of the community, generally.

:I think my hon. Friend has probably overlooked the words in Sub-section (1), which make it clear that the Minister may only proceed contrary to the advice of the Commission. It says, "The Minister may," in line 5, and then going right on to line 8, "nevertheless proceed with the acquisition on that ground." And "on that ground" relates back to the words "the right to use or determine the use." When the Minister comes to Parliament with his case he has to convince Parliament that it is on that ground—"on the right to use or determine the use"—that he is seeking to over-ride the Commission. I really think that hon. Members are making rather too much of this little point. The Government intend to state their proper reasons to the Commission. This will not be conducted in the way that a legal proceeding is conducted, in which, in a defence to a legal action, you plead, first of all, that you did not utter the words; secondly, that if you did utter the words, they were true; and thirdly, that if the words were not true, they were privileged. That is not the way in which the Government intend to proceed in this matter. They will put forward their principal reasons for acquiring and, as my right hon. Friend made clear, if they put forward a false reason that they wish to use or determine the use and proceed immediately after the acquisition to sell to some business man or contractor, they will be immediately detected in having put a false case to the Commission.

:I am grateful for the explanation which my right hon. Friend has just given to the Committee, but I do not think I would be prepared to agree that his explanation of the legal proceedings is entirely correct. I do not think that my hon. Friends ever intended to suggest that the Government would deliberately misrepresent the grounds on which they desired to proceed. But in view of the explanation which has just been given to the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, after "dwelling-house," insert:

"or agricultural building (as defined in Section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928)."

The grounds upon which we put forward this simple Amendment are these. In the future in the post-war world, the agricultural buildings of this country will be in a very parlous state as the result of seven years or more of neglect and lack of repair. Consequently, on the grounds that the retention of all agricultural buildings available will be necessary for the welfare of the country in order to carry out the programme of production, which will be just as necessary after the war, or at any rate for a number of years, and I hope for a long-term period, as has been the case during the war, we therefore propose that the land, where it consists of dwelling houses and of agricultural buildings which have been taken over under requisition, shall be included in the provisions whereby, if the Commission reports that the farm buildings are farm buildings, and further report that the land should not be acquired, then that decision shall be final. The extension is not a large one and although I have not any precise information as to the amount of buildings involved I believe that the number is not great. It refers to certain storage places upon which money has been spent and to certain other buildings but it is not, I believe, a large capital. I therefore hope that the Chancellor will accept this small Amendment.

:Though on Second Reading I could not strongly support this Bill, I have so far not spoken very much on the Committee stage. The discussion has been, largely, on a legal plane and I find it difficult to live up to the standard of my hon. and learned Friends. The present Amendment is a much more simple and rustic Amendment than some of the others. I appreciate that the Clause is, essentially, a country Clause. It deals with farmers, agricultural workers and landowners, and I welcome that particular consideration, but I suggest that without their source of livelihood, this consideration would not really be of very great value. What is the use of their dwellings, if the vital part of their holdings—the buildings, is gone? To-day, farm buildings are extremely valuable and difficult to replace. With the provision of electricity, water and other fittings necessary for the production of high grade milk, these buildings become valuable buildings like factory buildings.

They have this other disadvantage from the capital point of view, that the turnover in production in capital value is very low compared with factories. I, therefore, suggest that they might receive equal consideration with the dwellings of those who own and work in them. I hope that this will not be thought to be a matter which affects only rapacious landlords. Much of the land involved under this Bill is not in the hands of landlords in the ordinary sense. A great deal of it is in the hands of public bodies like the National Trust, and municipal bodies who hold it for purposes of catchment areas and things of that sort. All the small holdings under the county councils and owner-occupiers will come under this Clause and the Bill generally. Some of the criticisms levelled at hon. Members on this side of the Committee on the question of landlords is not quite relevant. I support the Amendment, and I hope that it will receive the favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

:Everybody appreciates the importance of the agricultural industry and the importance to that industry naturally of agricultural buildings, but I cannot think that it would be right in principle to extend to agricultural buildings the special protection which is given by this Clause to dwelling houses. There has always been—and it was manifest on Second Reading—a very strong feeling that, when you come to dwelling houses, you are dealing with something in a class by itself. Therefore, this Clause does provide special protection for dwelling houses if the Government feel that as a matter of policy it would be right that the Government themselves should use them or should acquire them for their use in connection with some undertaking if the Commission reported that there should be no power to issue a certificate and to overrule the Commission. But I cannot think that, as a matter of principle, it would be right to extend that provision beyond the dwelling houses, and without in the least minimising—which I do not—the importance of agricultural dwellings and agriculture. Once you say that buildings are used for particular industrial purposes—and agriculture is our greatest industry, and no one quarrels with that—then it would be very difficult, as a matter of principle, not to make exceptions in favour of other industrial buildings.

7.30 p.m.

We did not think that as a matter of principle it would be right to do that. Agriculture has its safeguard in the initial stages in the Minister of Agriculture as a Member of the Government. It will obviously be one of the considerations most pressing to the minds of the Commission in cases where agricultural interests are involved, as they always would be in cases where a proposal covers agricultural buildings. There is a further safeguard in all cases where the special protection given to dwelling houses does not apply in that, if the Minister desires to override the Commission, he has to come to the House, and the procedure follows with which the Committee are familiar. For these reasons we do not think it would be right to extend the special protection which is given to dwelling houses to agricultural buildings. If it were, many other industries would be able to raise the same point.

:It is possible that my right hon. and learned Friend might consider some qualification of the words "agricultural buildings." I can well understand that an isolated agricultural building, such as a shed in the fields for cattle in the winter, should not be allowed to obstruct a scheme which had been otherwise approved. I suggest, however, that it might be possible to include agricultural buildings which form part of a homestead, that is to say, buildings which are adjacent to a farmhouse. The farmhouse is really part of the agricultural buildings and would be useless as a farmhouse without them. If they are substantial, good and sound buildings, which have possibly been built or adapted for the production of milk under modern conditions, and perhaps have electricity laid on, they should be given the same sort of protection as the farmhouse. I doubt if buildings of that description would often interfere with any scheme of development which the Minister might be likely to propose. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to accept the words "forming part of a homestead "after" agricultural buildings."

:I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend's plea. I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was quite as convincing as he sometimes is. This protection can be extended to a park and garden, and yet it is not to be extended to farm buildings. My hon. Friends opposite, who are so anxious to impute motives to us with regard to landowners, are willing to protect the deer park or the garden. They are completely excluded, but the working premises of the farmer are not to be excluded. If the protection of this Clause can be extended to a garden or a park, it can be extended to protect the farmer's homestead and agricultural buildings. I would ask the Government to think again to see if words can be introduced to prevent any obstructive effect of an Amendment of this sort, which is not in the least our intention.

:I think that the learned Attorney-General has misconceived the position. Here is a case where the Commission, after hearing witnesses, has come to a certain conclusion. It is that these premises should, in the interests of the country, be retained for agriculture and not handed over to industry. That is what is in issue here. The Attorney-General made a mistake in saying that if the protection was given to agriculture it would have to be given to industry. The point is whether land which was agricultural before the war shall remain agricultural after the war, or become industrial. There is no question of who owns it or farms it. If the Government want it they will want if for industrial purposes. If they want it for a Service purpose, they will use the Defence Act. If they want it for industrial purposes they will use this Measure. There is a good case for saying that when the Commission, after the Government have put their case, have said that in the interests of food production these buildings should remain agricultural, it is wrong for any Government Department to have the power to override that.

The learned Attorney said that the Government includes the Minister of Agriculture who would surely protect his industry from losing buildings which are vital to it if he thought the case was good. If the Government put a power in this Bill that, where a Government Department want to override the Commission when the issue is agricultural buildings, they should only do so after having first conferred with the Minister of Agriculture, I would be satisfied, but that is not what is likely to happen. I cannot but think that, of there had had to be the prior approval of the Ministry of Agriculture, we would not have had vast acreages of land taken from agriculture for other purposes during the war. There is in our view a grave danger that, unless there are some limiting words such as these, there will be cases where the economical working of a farm will be hampered by a Government Department trying to override the Minister. It may be that our fears are not justified, but if that is so there is no harm in the Government accepting the Amendment.

:I agree with my hon. Friends that the Attorney-General has been unconvincing. He made a comparison between farm buildings and other industries. In my part of the United Kingdom 99 per cent. of the farms have their buildings attached to the dwellings, and because of that I should like some wording inserted to save the situation. In Northern Ireland farmers own their own buildings, and the situation requires the introduction of some words that will preserve the farm buildings which are attached to the dwellings.

:I thought there might be a point to be looked at here, although I think it may be more or less covered in practice already, until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He said the Commission's decision ought to be final on the question whether land should be used for food production or for industry. The last word on that matter, I should have thought, ought to rest with the Government. They are the people who will be held responsible if there is insufficient food production or insufficient industry. That is precisely the type of case where, though we do not anticipate any different of opinion between the Government and the Commission, the ultimate responsibility must constitutionally rest on those who are advising His Majesty as Ministers of the Crown. I agree that we are including gardens, but when hon. Members spoke about the homestead, it was unreal to assume that any Minister will be able to satisfy the House that, although it was necessary to take the buildings which were around the dwelling-house, they could not be acquired because the Commission had reported that it was a dwelling-house. We will look into the point raised, but I think my hon. Friend will recognise that it would be wrong to give the wide protection given by the Amendment to all agricultural buildings. We will look into the question to see whether we think it is necessary that, where there are a farm building consisting of a dwelling-house and the homestead all round as one unit, there should be some special protection to prevent what must be the rather theoretical case of the Government wanting to take that body of buildings while they cannot take the dwelling-house.

:The Attorney-General has met the point fairly well, and I feel that the suggestion ought to be accepted by those who supported the Amendment.

:In view of the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at end, insert:

"Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in relation to any dwelling house the construction of which was Government war work."

This Amendment is to correct a slip. It was not intended that the protection to dwelling houses should apply to dwelling houses which had been constructed as such by the Government on requisitioned land in connection with war work.

Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, at end, add:

"and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the date on which a copy of the report and the statement are laid before it resolves that the proposals shall not be proceeded with otherwise than in accordance with the report, the Minister shall not proceed with the proposals otherwise than in accordance with the report.

In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."

The purpose of the Amendment has been explained many times to the Committee. It is to ensure that, where the Government, in cases where the Bill so authorises, decide that they would wish to proceed in spite of an adverse report of the Commission, when they have laid on the Table as required by the Bill the particulars specified, then the proposal of the Government may be negatived by the ordinary procedure of a negative Resolution. I think it is in accordance with the general view of the Committee that the Amendment should be made.

7.45 p.m.

:On a point of Order, Sir Douglas. I desire to know whether it is your intention to call the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans), in line 3, leave out from "resolves," to end of line 5, and insert:

"after considering the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House who have heard representations made to them on behalf of the Minister and on behalf of persons interested in the land affected, who have presented a Petition to Parliament, that the report should be confirmed, rejected or varied, the Minister shall not proceed with the proposals otherwise than in accordance with the Resolution of the House."

:No, it has not been selected, but if the hon. Member desires to discuss it he may do so on the Amendment which has just been called.

:I wish to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the use of the method of Private Bill procedure. The advantages of Private Bill procedure over the Prayer appear to me to be that it would enable small points in the scheme to be considered by hon. Members of the House. A Prayer in the House of Commons, taken at a very late hour, is not a convenient procedure. It is difficult for a little local matter to be decided by a Prayer. I have always had great admiration for the way in which the House of Commons has conducted its business in Private Bill Committees, of which we all had experience before the war, and it seems to me that these questions of the acquisition of land, in which on an occasion a Government Department may wish to override the Commission, should be dealt with not by Prayer, but by a Private Bill Committee. No one likes to pray against the Government on what may be a small matter. No one wishes to jeopardise the existence of the Government. After all, it would be very awkward if the Prime Minister lost his office and the Government fell because on some little local matter a Government Department had, in the eyes of the House, wrongly disagreed with the finding of the Commission.

I will be candid with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I do see some difficulty in Private Bill procedure. It is only right that I should put both sides of the case. After a hearing before the Commission, one does not want another full hearing with counsel and all the expenses involved in a Private Bill Committee; but although there is that difficulty, I do not think the method of a Prayer is the best method. I know the whole procedure of the House is at the moment undergoing close consideration, and it may be that we must devise a new form of procedure for dealing with such cases as those in which a Government Department wishes to override the decision of a Commission. I suggest to the Chancellor that he might reconsider this matter before a further stage, bearing in mind the view held by some of us that it is wrong to take these matters of overriding the Commission on the Floor of the House at a late hour, and that it would be helpful if such matters could be taken upstairs to a small Committee of Members. Further, there may be cases in which the decision of the House will not be to say "yes" or "no" to the Government Department's decision but to suggest an Amendment or compromise. That system of compromise is not possible under the procedure of a Prayer, but it is possible by means of Private Bill procedure. I think, perhaps, that these words of mine will enable the Chancellor to see what was in our minds when we put down the Amendment which you, Sir Douglas, were unfortunately unable to call.

:As an appeal has been made, I think it convenient that I should deal at once with the matter which has been raised. My hon. Friend spoke as if he were dealing solely with the question of procedure, but I think the point that he has raised is one of substance. What in effect he is suggesting is that there should be super-imposed upon procedure before the Commission another quite unrelated form of judicial procedure before a Select Committee of this House. I suppose, though it is not in the Amendment, there would have to be a similar provision for proceedings before a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and I do not in the least know how the two procedures could be fitted together. If the matter were thought out, this Amendment, if it were considered to have merit, would have to be converted into an Amendment applying the ordinary Provisional Order procedure to the subject matter.

What the Government have offered here is a Parliamentary safeguard so that when on grounds of Government policy the Government wish to override the decision of the Commission this House should have the last word. They have not suggested that there is any case for giving to the private interests that may be affected, a further hearing before a Select Committee or any other Parliamentary body after the remedies which will be available to the Commission under the Bill have been exhausted. Moreover, such a proceeding might be exceedingly burdensome to the interests concerned. It might be exceedingly expensive. There would be no finality, because the work of the Commission might go entirely by the board, and the whole process of argument might have to be gone through again. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that this Amendment and the principle which it embodies, ought to be rejected without further ado. I cannot think that the superimposition of procedure of this kind would contribute towards maintaining the authority and prestige of the Commission.

:I owe an apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for not being in my place to move an Amendment which dealt with very much the same point as the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend. I am still inclined to think that in a matter of this importance, when the Government decide to overrule the decision of the Commission, it would have been more appropriate, had it been possible for them to do so, if an affirmative Resolution authorising it had been passed by this House. I recognise there is not any very great difference between the two, except as my hon. Friend has said, for the additional burden upon Private Members of selecting colleagues who may not themselves be interested in a matter which might concern a Member's own constituency alone, and persuading them to vote against the Government upon a Prayer late at night. In this Amendment the Chancellor has made explicit the ultimate control which this House will have over the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

:I wish to raise one point, the Amendment relating to it was not called, and I was, therefore, unable to raise it earlier. Clause 9 says that, in certain cases, the finding of the Commission shall be overridden, and it gives a saving to the provisions of Sub-sections (5) and (6). I am not clear whether it also gives a saving to Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Clause 10. I should have thought that where there had been conditional recommendation by the Commission—which really means that there has been an agreement specially under Sub-section (3), dealing with rehabilitation of land—it would be undesirable for the agreed decision of the Commission to be overridden by a Government Department. I should have thought that that was not the type of case to which the Chancellor referred when he spoke about one of the grounds being the right to use or determine the use of works. Would the Chancellor consider between now and the Report stage, altering the opening words of Clause 9 so as to allow Clause 10 to be included?

:I am perfectly prepared to look into that, but I must not be taken to have given any sort of undertaking.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Conditional Recommendations by Commission.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 11, leave out Sub-section (2).—[ Sir J. Anderson. ]

:I beg to move, in page 8, line 46, leave out from "the," to end of Clause, and add:

8.0 p.m.

Therefore we set out to give a proper definition of people to whom the Com- mission will look, and to whom the land will be returned in certain circumstances. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the words "rightful occupier." I had some difficulty, and so did those who adivised me, in determining the right words to use in this connection, but we came to the conclusion that "rightful occupier" was most likely to include the types of people whom we had in mind and to exclude the others. In the first part of the Amendment, which would become Sub-section (2), we seek to insert that the Commission may report that

We also seek to insert a new Sub-section (3), to give the rightful occupier the opportunity to rehabilitate, if the conditions are satisfied that the Commission imposed. Then the Minister may not acquire. On receiving the undertaking—and this is an important point—and accepting the security which is advanced by the rightful occupier, the Minister will immediately hand back possession of the requisitioned land to the rightful occupier, allowing him to get on with the fulfilment of the conditions laid down as to rehabilitation. Thirdly, on completion of the work of rehabilitation and restoration, the Minister will pay to the person who has spent the money the amount of the cost over and above the compensation that the man would receive, under the normal compensation provisions. The conditions laid down by the Commission can specify the degree of rehabilitation, and therefore the Commission are able to prevent any abuse, or unnecessary restoration. The next Sub-section covers cases where the conditions are not fulfilled and where the rightful occupier, or the person who is restoring the land, fails to do the restoration. Then the matter is referred back to the Commission by the Minister, and the Commission may re-decide. Their decision is final.

I submit that the arrangement which we put forward is more likely to obtain the restoration of the land than that which is put forward by the Government. What we are endeavouring to incorporate in the Bill is that every facility shall be given to owners to rehabilitate, if they can do it, that financial difficulties shall not be allowed to stand in the way and encouragement shall be given to them, and that they will be able to retain their land provided that they restore it according to the conditions laid down. It appears to be only fair that, to that owner who has given up land under requisition for war purposes, that land should be given back by the Government at the end of the war period, so that it can be restored and that he will not lose compulsorily and permanently the use of that land.

It further seems only fair that if the person fails in fulfilling the condition, the Commission itself should be the body to reconsider the decision it formerly gave. Finally, where the cost of restoration has exceeded the amount of the compensation that an owner can obtain, it seems right and proper to put into the Bill that compensation, over and above that which is obtainable under the Compensation (Defence) Act should be payable to the owners. I hope that the Chancellor will see that our objective is simply to find the best and surest way to obtain the greatest amount of rehabilitation or restoration. On those grounds, I commend the Amendment.

:The Amendment raises a very important point. It is necessary to direct attention again to the fact that the Bill is intended to assist the nation to recover as rapidly as possible, in the transition from war to peace, and that the Amendment, like many of the others, makes it clear that the first consideration is to be given to the landlord.

:No. I cannot allow my hon. Friend to say that. Three or four times I pointed out while I was speaking that the object of the Amendment is to obtain as much restoration as possible.

:I know all about restoration. There has been a lot of cheap casuistry this afternoon about it. A fight before the Commission could be used for enhancing the opportunities for compensation under the Defence Act. I hope the Government will not accept that. I want to direct attention to the Clause itself. Sub-section (3) of Clause 10 says:

"Provided that the Commission shall not specify a person under this Subsection as a person to give an undertaking unless they are satisfied that he has sufficient rights in the land.…"

That is something which some hon. Members want left out. I would suggest to the Minister in connection with this Clause that when the Commission is set up every member of it should be supplied with a copy of a book written by the Secretary of State for Scotland on "Our Noble Families." If the right hon. Gentleman has read it he knows that most of the land was obtained by robbery and murder. The Secretary of State gives facts in support of what he says. Is it not clear that these land robbers could not satisfy any Commission that they have a right to the land? The Amendment deals with the occupier of the land, not with the man who has a right in the land. I hope that the Chancellor and the Government will stick to the Clause as it stands, and will see that that part of it is operated, and that unless any of these landowners can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt they have a right to the land, they should have no consideration whatever. That is fair treatment. If they have stolen the land it should be taken from them. I say that if members of the Commission get a copy of "Our Noble Families," by the Secretary of State for Scotland, when some of these people go before the Commission, they will go from the Commission to gaol. I ask the Government completely to ignore the Amendment and stick to the Clause. It is a good Clause.

:The first point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major York) was for the substitution of the words "the rightful occupier" for the definition which we have in Sub-section (3). I hope the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will excuse me from going into those murky pages of the history of our native land which be has mentioned, and will let me deal with the matter on a slightly more restricted level. I listened with very great care to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon, and I failed to see that he made any point for the substitution of "rightful occupier" for the definition in Sub-section (3). In the Subsection, as he pointed out, it is He suggested that that might include undesirable persons. He gave us an extreme case. But the hon. Member for West Fife has pointed out there is a proviso that the Commission

8.15 p.m.

With regard to the middle portion of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, I think he will see that as Subsection (2) was omitted, by the Amendment which I moved a few moments ago, what is left of that portion of his Amendment is rather doubtful. I wish to deal with the points of substance. I do not want to deal with the Amendment on any legalistic traverse of what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. There are really two points of substance which he is putting. The first is that in respect of the Government being entitled, under Clause 47, to make a conditional payment, they should be compellable to make that payment at the instance of the Commission. My hon. and gallant Friend will agree that that would put fairly one of his main points. We feel that that function is essentially one on which the Government must make their decision, and it has to be noted that under Clause 10 (3) the Commission may report that the land ought not to be acquired if the person specified in the report states that he himself will take steps for its rehabilitation.

Under Clause 47 rehabilitation in the public interest is contemplated, and as was pointed out several times yesterday, Clause 6 (1, b ) could not, in fact, be operated unless this were so, and that that was the object of the action taken. So there is, under our suggestion, the right given to the Government to pay the conditional sum, where they are satis- fied that the rehabilitation is in the public interest, and where they think it is the proper course. I do not see how any Government could deprive itself of that duty of considering whether or not it was in the public interest.

The other point of substance which my hon. and gallant Friend put forward is that if the Commission makes a conditional report, and the condition is not carried out, the matter should go back to the Commission. In other words, there is either the owner himself or the Commission suggesting this condition, suggesting that he will carry out the condition, and then he does not carry it out. My hon. and gallant Friend says that then the whole thing has to go back into a state of flux, and go before the Commission again—another bite at the cherry, and I suppose that any number of bites at the cherry may be permitted. One must have some finality in this matter. Again I put to the Committee that what is in the Clause, namely, that if the condition is not satisfied the land can then be acquired, is reasonable. It gives the Commission a chance of putting forward the condition, it gives the person interested the right to fulfil the condition, and if he does not fulfil it the Government can acquire the land. I do not think the Committee would approve of a state of things in which the matter goes back into a state of flux, and there is no finality in the matter at all. I fully appreciate the desire that my hon. and gallant Friend has to encourage the rehabilitation of the land. That is the desire which animates us all. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife made it quite clear that that was the desire animating him, although he approached it from a slightly different angle. What we have to find is the best and most practicable method, and, with all respect to the thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon has given to the matter, I could not commend his method as being the best and most practicable in the circumstances.

:I am not at all satisfied with what the Solicitor-General has said. In regard to this question of the rightful occupier, my objective is to see that the man from whom the land is taken for war purposes is given the opportunity to obtain that land again, and to restore it. With the words at present in the Clause, the chances of the rightful occupier obtain- ing the land are very small. It might well be that a manufacturer has put up a building on the land, or that part of an aerodrome has gone over on to that land, and that that part may not be required by the aerodrome authorities, whether they be the Government or private persons, after the war. I am suggesting cases where the expression "the rightful owner" is better than that used in the Clause. In these cases it is very unlikely that the rightful occupier will get the land back again. I am sure that the Government will see that the occupiers before the requisitioning should, wherever practicable, get the land back, but nowhere does the Bill come nearer to saying that than that the man who is going to take the land over and occupy it must have "sufficient rights in the land." What does that mean? It means almost anything—that he has put some work on the land.

:Will my hon. and gallant Friend look at the proviso? He will see that it says that

"The Commission shall not specify a person … unless they are satisfied that he has sufficient rights in the land .… to enable him to carry out his undertaking."

He must have sufficient rights in the land to enable him to carry out his undertaking to take the necessary steps for total or partial rehabilitation. I do not see how, unless the land speculator has a mortgage in a very curious form, or, if we take the case of the Service Department or the local authority having an aerodrome, unless they have very odd and unusual conditions in their arrangements for taking over the aerodrome, they would have these rights of rehabilitation. It must be someone with sufficient rights in the land to enable him in law to carry out the rehabilitation.

:I do not think that that takes it any further. The point is that where the Commission decide that somebody has some rights in the land the fact that he was or was not the occupier before the requisitioning is not considered at any point by the Commission. They may have some quite extraneous reasons for allowing somebody to come along and restore the land. That is the point that I do not consider has been met by the Solicitor-General. In regard to what he said about compensation, unless at each stage of the Bill, particularly in Part II, you include specific provisions to allow more than the compensation provided for, I do not see that Clause 47 will sufficiently safeguard the position. In cases where restoration is really necessary and there is no argument at all, I am quite sure that the Minister concerned will use Clause 47; but in borderline cases, where restoration may or may not be necessary, if you have the rightful occupier saying: "I am going to restore this land," and he puts up a jolly fine case to the Commissioners, surely it will be far safer, in the interests of restoration, to allow him to have the extra compensation. I am sorry that I cannot convince the Government that my proposal would be better than theirs, but I feel that they have not met this point, and I hope that when we are discussing further points on restoration they will have a more positive policy than they have now.

:Will the Solicitor-General tell us a little more clearly what he means by the term "rights in the land"? It is a very vague term, and prefixing it with the adjective "sufficient" makes it even more vague.

:If my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) will look at the proviso, he will see that the word "sufficient" is introductory to the next words, which are:

"rights in the land … to enable him to carry out his undertaking."

The undertaking is specified in the substantive part of Sub-section (3): that he will take steps, so specified, for the total or partial rehabilitation of the land. In order to take these steps, supposing that it was a case where the only way of rehabilitating was afforestation of the land, you would have to have the right of entry to the land—of performing works on the land, it may be.

:These rights exist only in certain interests in the land. The freeholder, of course, would have them all. A lessee might or might not. So we go on. If you take estates in succession, the tenant for life might or might not have rights in this land; the remainder tenant might have rights; the rights in timber might be shared between them. Therefore, you have to see whether the person specified has sufficient rights.

Amendment negatived.

8.30 p.m.

:I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, leave out from "acquired," to end of Clause.

I have said on previous occasions that I think the drafting of the Bill could be improved, and I feel this is definitely a case where this might be done. If hon. Members will give their attention to Subsection (4), they will find that it says:

I seem to remember that, in contracts, you usually have a saving clause about acts of God or the King's enemies, but there is no such saving clause here. There is no saving at all. I suggest to the Government that, if they cut out all these words, they would not diminish the powers of the Government Department under this Clause to go to the Commission and make their case. It would be in the interests of everybody, I think, that where there has been some failure, from what- ever cause, the Commission should be asked to consider the whole position again and see what the decision should be. I am sure that the Government are not anxious to take a cheap advantage of anybody who may be faced with difficulties, and I therefore ask them to leave out these words, because I really believe that, by leaving them out, they are giving away no just claim. All that they are doing is to give up what appears to the layman to be a cheap advantage. It may well be that some lawyer, reading those words, might find many loopholes, because the first part of Sub-section (4) appears to deal with both Sub-sections (1) and (3), whereas the second part deals with only Sub-section (3). What is the difference, and what is the effect of the difference? Is it that, although it says that, if it is a failure under Sub-section (1), the report shall be treated as a report that the land can be properly acquired, the Minister may not proceed with the acquisition of the land? That would appear to be one of the curious results of this drafting, and I hope the Attorney-General will give way on this Amendment and allow the words to be deleted.

:I wish to make it clear, in the first place, that the Minister concerned will not be in the least desirous of purchasing land under Clause 6 of the Bill unless satisfied that there is no other way; in fact, the Minister has to be satisfied under the Clause that there is no other way of securing rehabilitation. But the effect of leaving out the words which my hon. Friend proposes should be left out would be that, where a case had gone to the Commission, and where, by giving an undertaking that he would carry out the rehabilitation himself, the owner had secured a recommendation of the Commission against the acquisition of the land by giving the undertaking, then, if subsequently the undertaking was not fulfilled and if these words are omitted from the Clause, the position apparently has to be considered de novo. What the inclusion of the words does provide is that if, having given an undertaking to the Commission to carry out certain works within a time specified under Sub-section (3), the person giving the undertaking falls down upon that undertaking, then the report may be read as a report in favour of acquisition. It seems to me that a sanction of this sort should be included, because, otherwise, anybody can escape the cones- quences of the Clause and leave their land derelict, having given an undertaking that they intended to restore it but not having proceeded to fulfil that undertaking—when the position, apparently, would be left in the air. I suggest that, if an undertaking is given, the proper time limit can be fixed under Sub-section ( 3 ) by the Commission, and, if that undertaking is given and is then not carried out, the ordinary consequences ought to follow and the Minister should have the power to acquire. I therefore suggest that it would be a mistake to omit the words from the Clause as my hon. Friend proposes.

:I do not like butting in, but it is terrible to see what is going on. The hon. Member, and some of his supporters, on several occasions have insisted that, whenever the Government are under any obligation in this Bill, the obligation should be made specific, with no getting out of it for the Government, but, when it comes to an obligation of landlords, to make it as easy on them as possible and not to make it too definite and specific, as this Clause does. I say that, if the undertaking is given, and, as a consequence, the land is retained but the undertaking is not carried out, whether it is an act of God or anything else, the land should be acquired for the rehabilitation which the Government consider necessary. I draw the attention of the hon. Member himself to that attitude which they adopt when it is a question of tying down the Government and how reluctant hon. Members are to tie down the landlords.

:Like the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I am not satisfied with the Financial Secretary's explanation. May I read it to him again? I think he has perhaps failed to observe exactly what the undertaking is. It is an undertaking within a time specified, and if, by any act of God, anybody giving that undertaking fails, then the whole of the report of the Commission is completely negatived. All I am asking for is that there should be some right for that person to go and ask for extra time in certain cases. The hon. Member for West Fife, I am afraid, has not realised who are involved in this particular Subsection.

:Not only the little fellows, the local authorities, the commoners, the people who are trying to rehabilitate their land. It is the commoners who will try to come under Clause 6 and get their land rehabilitated, and it may well be that the problem of rehabilitation, especially of aerodrome land, will be much greater than is thought. All I am asking for is that there should be some protection, and that protection shall be shared alike by the local authorities and also by the small individual owner of land. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, who comes and makes frequent incursions in this House and tries to traduce the ownership of land. He has many constituents in West Fife who are proud of owning and looking after their land and keeping it in good condition, and why every time he runs down his small constituents and gives greater powers to the large Government Departments, I cannot understand. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will look further into this.

:When we were discussing Sub-section (5) of Clause 8, the hon. Gentleman showed confidence in the judgment of the Commission to be established under the Bill. It will be for the Commission to specify the conditions and the time limits, and I feel perfectly confident that, where an owner comes forward and says he is prepared to rehabilitate, they will specify a reasonable time to allow for all sorts of contingencies which may occur. I think we can reply upon the Commission to lay down reasonable terms, and I think we can also rely upon the fact that Ministers will not be in the least anxious to take over the onerous duty of becoming under Clause 6 the owners of land upon which they will have to spend a great deal of money in the course of doing so and rehabilitating it themselves. I think, therefore, that my hon. Friend's fears upon this Subsection are rather exaggerated.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Principles on which Commission are to act.)

:I beg to move, in page 9, line 21, leave out "subject to the provisions of this Section."

This Amendment, and the following one have been put down to fulfil an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Second Reading Debate. It was, of course, always our intention—and I think the words "in all the circumstances" probably cover it—that the Commission should have regard to all national and local interests and requirements whether as to planning, amenities or otherwise. However, in order that it should be clear on the face of the Bill that they not only have to consider the individual circumstances of those interested in the land, but the interests of the Government in putting forward the proposal, we agree that it is an improvement to have these words on the face of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 22, after "opinion," insert:

"in view of the national and local interests and requirements (whether as to planning or amenities or otherwise) and the private interests affected."—[ The Attorney-General. ]

8.45 p.m.

:I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, at end, insert:

"Provided that in no circumstances shall the Commission report in favour of acquisition where at the time of the original Government user or work an express undertaking of restoration is proved to have been made on behalf of the Crown or other the authority or persons carrying out the work or using the land."

I think this Amendment speaks for itself. Clearly it is not the desire of the Government that where an express undertaking to restore the land to its owners has been given, the Commission should proceed further with the proposal. It may be that the Minister who replies will say that this is covered by the proposed new Clause [ Saving for Agreements ], but that says that a Minister is not to proceed with the acquisition where a promise of restoration has been given. I think what this Amendment would be a good thing to incorporate in the Bill, because it will save the Commission from considering the matter in those circumstances.

:As my hon. Friend has said, there is a new Clause dealing with this matter, and it may be that would be the appropriate place to discuss this general question. He thinks that the new Clause does not go quite far enough; we think that his Amendment goes rather too far. It is quite right, of course, that agreements in writing, and undertakings given on behalf of a client of a binding character, should be carried out, but this Amendment refers to undertakings given by some authority other than the Crown, or persons carrying out the work in using the land, and we think that goes too far. I think it would be impossible to provide for that with any legal words, but whether it would be relevant to take into account things which may be short of undertakings or contracts, or where there may be some understanding, I am not quite sure. We seek to provide in our new Clause for definite agreements, one way or the other, work upon which has been proceeded with and on which money has been expended, and so on. We think that this goes too far, however, but, subject to the Chair, I should have thought the question as to how far this general principle should be carried, really ought to be discussed on the new Clause.

:Would my right hon. and learned Friend deal with my point, that whereas the Government's proposed new Clause deals with any proposal by the Minister to acquire in the face of an agreement for restoration, my Amendment bars any proposal by the Commission to recommend acquisition in the face of a promise to restore? I do not think he has dealt with that point.

:I am not sure that I quite follow my hon. Friend now. The Minister, in any case, initiates the proceedings, and this Amendment says:

"Provided that in no circumstances shall the Commission report in favour of acquisition where at the time of the original Government user or work an express undertaking of restoration is proved to have been made on behalf of the Crown or other the authority or persons carrying out the work or using the land."

:I am sorry to press my right hon. and learned Friend but there is nothing at all in the Government's new Clause about initiation. It says that the Government shall not acquire—

:Would my right hon. and learned Friend look into the point at the appropriate stage?

:As I say, I may have been stupid, but I have not followed the point of my hon. Friend. It certainly will be looked into before the new Clause comes up for discussion.

:On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, leave out "financial."

Although financial advantage from the retention of land might be an important consideration for the party putting forward a case against proposals for acquisition, there may be advantages of other kinds which he may think important, and I cannot see any reason why the particular regard of the Commission should be confined to advantages on the financial side.

:I think that when I have explained this matter my hon. Friend will see the point of the inclusion of the word "financial" in this Sub-section. This Clause states the principles upon which the Commission are to act, and Sub-section (1), as amended on the motion of the Attorney-General, now sets forth very clearly the general considerations, including the amenity and planning considerations, to which the Commission have to have regard. Sub-sections (2) and (4)—Sub-section (3) having disappeared from the Bill in consequence of the deletion of paragraph ( a ) of Subsection (1) of Clause 6—deal with two particular cases. Sub-section (2) deals with acquisition on the ground of preservation of value and Sub-section (4) deals with acquisition for the purposes of rehabilitation. Each of these Sub-sections sets out a certain number of considerations which must be borne in mind by the Commission in considering either of these two classes of case. Sub-section (2), in particular, is a case where the ground of acquisition is the preservation of value and, there, the Commission have to consider not only the general considerations laid down in Sub-section (1)—amenity, planning, and so forth—but also have to consider the financial consequences of their retention. They have to consider under Sub-section (2, a ) the cost of the works and under (2, b ) the financial advantages which would accrue to the objector if the land were not acquired—that is to say, the extent to which the landlord would benefit if, at the termination of requisitioning, the Government war works fell into his lap without any payment on his part. Under (2, c ) they have to consider the degree of loss or hardship which any objector would sustain if the land were acquired. The words in (2, c ), "loss or hardship," include the sort of personal considerations which some of my hon. Friends have mentioned once or twice in the course of our Debates—for instance, where there is a small man who has a personal attachment to the premises where perhaps he and his forebears have carried on business for a number of years. It seems quite right, in considering the case for acquisition on the grounds of preserving value, that the Commission should have special regard to financial considerations, and for that reason I think the word "financial" qualifying the word "advantage" in (2, b ) is apt for the purpose we have in mind.

:The financial advantage referred to accrues, of course, from works which have been erected. It could not be a financial advantage to the objector if there were some changes in the neighbourhood, but not on his land. I think it is purely on the ground of the financial advantage of the particular works that would accrue to him.

:I think it is wider than that. A possible case is that where work has been done on, say, premises which were an existing business. The works done are of such value that, considered alone, they justified a proposal by the Crown to purchase in order to realise the value. That might inflict great financial loss on the owner if the land was acquired and, on the other hand, if the land with his original premises and the added premises on it was left in his possession, there would be great financial advantage to him. The Commission have to consider the financial effect on him, as well as the financial interest of the Crown, on behalf of the taxpayers, which is purchasing in order to preserve value. We thought it right to put in special words to provide that where the Crown is coming forward on financial grounds they ought to consider the financial advantage which would accrue to the objector if the land were not acquired.

:If the word "financial" were omitted the effect would be the exact opposite of what was intended by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). The Commission must take into account all sorts of other advantages which would accrue to the objector if the land was not acquired.

:I am not concerned about the Government having resisted this Amendment, but I am concerned about the wording in this Sub-section, as it might affect the owner of contiguous land which was to be acquired. If the narrower limit suggested by the Financial Secretary was only to be applied to the word "financial" in respect of works actually on the land, I am not quite sure that that would cover the particular case of the owner of contiguous land. I therefore ask my right hon. and learned Friend to bear that aspect of the matter in mind.

:The point I want to make is that there can be no financial advantages accruing to the owner of the land not being acquired. There are no war works on his land, and, therefore, nothing is going to fall into his lap if the proposals for acquisition are not carried through.

9.0 p.m.

:I am not on very sure ground here, and I think it might be as well if I attempted to make my point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

:In view of the statement by the Minister I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, at end, insert:

"and

( d ) the degree of importance (to the interests of agriculture, forestry, trade, amenities or other public interests or to the interests of owners or occupiers of land) of any purpose for which the land would be likely to be used if it were not acquired."

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will advance the same argument against this Amendment that he did on the previous one, namely, that it is really covered by the Chancellors Amendment which says:

"In view of the local and national interests, etc."

If this is his argument against this Amendment, I would like to point out that he would give a measure of satisfaction and reassurance to farmers and to amenity societies, if he accepted it so as to make it perfectly clear that the Commission is to take these interests into consideration.

:I think I ought to mention, although I do not want to make it a point, that these words are quite out of place in this Sub-section because this Subsection deals with one of the four classes of case in the Bill under which land may be acquired. This Sub-section deals with the case of acquisition on the ground that the value of the works ought to be preserved. I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend would like his-Amendment to be taken into consideration by the Commission in the case of acquisition, whatever the purpose or whatever the ground upon which a case for acquisition is put forward. I feel that the words we have now imported into Sub-section (1) cover all the considerations which my right hon. Friend has in mind in the words on the Order Paper. The words of the Sub-section as the result of amendment are now very wide:

"The Commission, in considering any proposals referred to them shall have regard to all relevant considerations and … shall recommend what in their opinion, in view of the national and local interest and requirements and the private interests affected, etc."

These are the widest possible words and it would be, I think, unwise to try to specify in greater detail matters to which the Commission should have regard. As soon as we begin to elaborate and give the Commission particular matters to look at, they are bound to pay correspondingly less attention to other features which may be of more importance. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied that this Amendment is not really necessary and would not be satisfactory.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 9, line 32, leave out "Sub-section (3)."

This is consequential upon the deletion of paragraph ( a ) in Sub-section (1) of Clause 6.

Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, at end, insert:

"( b ) the desirability of the case being dealt with under Section forty-seven of this Act."

This is a very important Amendment. Section 47 of the Bill enables a Minister, in a case where land damaged by Government war work or war use is, in the public interest, to be rehabilitated, and the compensation payable under the Defence Act of 1939 is not adequate to pay for the cost of rehabilitation, to pay an additional sum to the person who incurs that cost. That being in the Bill, surely it is very desirable that the Commission which has to consider these cases should be empowered under this Clause 11 to recommend a higher rate of payment for rehabilitation of depreciated land. In other words, the principle of Clause 47 should be brought into this part of the Bill in order to enable it to be applied to land which is brought before the Commission.

:Earlier in the deliberations my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was moving Amendments on behalf of absent Friends. He has now joined the absent Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has taken on his role.

:I appreciate, of course, the importance of the point which this Amendment raises, but we do think that, on the whole, it would be right, in a sense, if not in absolute words, to impose upon the Committee the duty of, in fact, directing the Government that the power given by Clause 47 was to be operated. Clause 47, of course, deals with the expenditure of money and the payment of compensation over and above that, at present, provided by the State. I suggest to the Committee that the responsibility of operating that Clause ought to be on the Government and if insufficient use is made of it they could be criticised, but the effect of this Amendment would be that the Commission would be invited to say, "We think this is a case for the Government to operate Clause 47." In their view the right thing is to leave Clause 47 and the responsibility for using it in the hands of the Minister. As my hon. Friend is well aware, the Commission have power, and indeed are directed, to take into account any offer that is made by an owner for rehabilitation.

I think that in practice the cases where the Government want to buy under Clause 6, Sub-section (1, b ) will mostly be cases where the damaged land has been in different ownership and has been extremely badly damaged, and where it will be very difficult to get a satisfactory rehabilitation scheme going unless the whole of the property can be got under a single ownership. That, I think, will be found to be the result in the administration. I cannot think that the Government, with the many other matters which they will have to attend to, will want to purchase land for the sake of rehabilitation if it can be satisfactorily done either by Clause 47 or by an undertaking given by the owner, which might be given without its being necessary to invoke Clause 47, because the compensation already covers it. Therefore, while I sympathise with the motive behind the Amendment, which is that Clause 47 should be operated in proper cases, I would point out that there is every reason to suppose that is the course which Departments will take. Apart from those practical arguments against the Amendment, I think it would not be right to impose on the Commission the power, in effect, to say that Clause 47 is to be operated.

:Would not the desirability of action being taken under Clause 47 be a relevant circumstance for the Commission to take into account? If it is, it seems to me that this Amendment is unnecessary. If it is not a relevant circumstance it seems to me we ought to give the matter more consideration.

:Of course, we will consider this matter if the Committee would like us to do so. The point I am making is that I do not think it ought to be in the power of the Commission to say that, whatever the Government may think, in their view the case is one for Clause 47. That is the objection I have to the Amendment. I cannot imagine any motive for buying land for rehabilitation if the Minister is satisfied that either under an undertaking given under the ordinary compensation scales, or by operating Clause 47, the rehabilitation can be satisfactorily carried out.

:My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) intervened on my behalf when I was absent earlier, and I am glad now to do a similar service for him in his absence. After listening to the Attorney-General's reply I do not feel that reply is consistent with the arguments that have previously been put forward by the Government. The Government's argument has been that in dealing with the quite unforeseeable circumstances of the numerous requisitioned land and war works in different parts of the country, it is very important that the Commission should have the widest discretion to deal with particular cases, as they arise, upon their merits. Following out that line of argument they have taken special powers in Clause 47 of the Bill to enable special compensation to be paid. I should have thought that where the Commission are dealing with these matters it is essential that they should be entitled to take into consideration all the possible compensation powers which are given to the Government under this Bill. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) seems to be unanswerable. Either the Commission are able to take this matter into account or they are not, and if they are not, they should be able to do so. We ought to have an assurance on that point. I do not see how we can be asked to rely upon the Commission to exercise a very wide discretion in all the unforeseeable circumstances that may arise under the Bill if in point of fact they are not going to be able to take into account and to make an independent recommendation for the operation of Clause 47.

9.15 p.m.

:I have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and the speech of the Attorney-General, and I must say that on this occasion the Attorney-General was not up to his best standard. What is the position? The Commission suddenly come across a case to which they can find no satisfactory solution within Clause 11, and they say that under Clause 47, if the Minister has an opinion, other things can happen. Why should not the Commission stimulate a Minister to have an opinion? In actual practice, probably they will do so, because if they come up against a difficult case and do not know what to do, the chairman will say to the secretary: "Will you pop along and see the Minister's Secretary, and ask the Minister to have an opinion?" But why not make it clear in the Bill that if there is under another Clause a solution to the problem which is not satisfactorily prescribed under Clause 11, the Commission can draw the attention of the Minister to the fact, and then the Minister will say: "It would not be a bad idea in this rather difficult and complicated case if we used the powers under Clause 47." After all, this will all be one Act of Parliament, and the Commission ought to be free to take account of all the provisions of the Act. Why close the eyes of the Commission to Clause 47? It is probably only in a small number of cases that this difficulty will arise. Why deprive ourselves of an opportunity of affording what may be an easy solution to an exceedingly difficult problem? In an Act of Parliament one can never contemplate every possible case. There are always awkward problems for which no solution can be found, and an injustice is done. Let us make it easy to find a solution, and not difficult. That is the purpose of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Twickenham.

:I think the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is quite wrong and cannot have read the Amendment with the context of the Clause. If he will look at the Clause, he will see that the Commission must have particular regard to Sub-section (2 a, b and c ) with a view to making a decision. When they have to have regard to the desirability of cases being dealt with under Clause 47, the only way in which they can do that is by making a decision that Clause 47 shall be brought into effect. I can see no other way in which they can carry into effect the desirability of the case being dealt with in that way. Therefore, if this Amendment were accepted the result would be that the Commission would have the power to make grants out of public money in accordance with Clause 47.

As the Clause stands that is a prerogative that rests with the Minister. There is no other Clause in which the Commission is given the power to hand over public money. Therefore this would be a unique provision. The only way they can give effect to this desirability is to bring into operation Clause 47, and therefore to make a grant out of public money. It will be quite wrong to give the Commission power to spend public money in this way.

:After all, they are only asking the Minister to consider it. They cannot compel him. If the Minister does not arrive at that opinion it goes back to the Commission.

:I do not think that is the effect of inserting these words and I think there is great force in what the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has said. Of course we do not intend that the Commission should have power to say, "Let us adjourn this and see if we cannot get the Minister to act under Clause 47." My right hon. Friend has put down an Amendment to that Clause. I do not suppose we shall reach it to-night and I am not sure that it is on the Order Paper to-day. It brings into Clause 47 the case where an undertaking is given in pursuance of a report of the Commission, and it may be that that will assist in making clear the point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that there ought to be power to say, "We will adjourn this and negotiate." But I will certainly undertake to consider it. I do not want words put in which will give the Commission power to say, "You have the power to operate Clause 47," but I entirely agree that it should be possible for cases to be adjourned when the Commission think they ought to be dealt with under Clause 47 and to give the parties the chance of taking up the matter with the appropriate Ministry.

:I am glad the Attorney-General has said what he has, because the idea is that it should be done in the Ministerial black market instead of the open market.

:What the Attorney-General has said goes a long way, but I should like to point out how much it adds to the difficulties of the Bill that such extensive Amendments have been introduced that even the Attorney-General does not know whether they are all on the Order Paper to-day.

:The Attorney-General has gone a long way to meet the point, but surely it is not quite right to say that it would give the Commission power to make the Minister spend money on anything. The Commission have to consider all relevant circumstances before reporting whether or not a proposal should be carried forward. It seems to me that it ought to be within the Commission's power to say: "having regard to your powers under other Sections, we do not think you ought to acquire this land." Unless effect is given to this Amendment you are really saying that the words "relevant considerations" in Subsection (1) mean all relevant considerations except one. I am not quite clear from what the Attorney-General has said whether he agrees that included in the relevant considerations is the consideration of the possibility of the Government taking action under Clause 47. I should be grateful if he would put my mind at rest about that point.

:I think I have stated the position quite clearly. I cannot add to what I have said.

Amendment negatived.

:I beg to move, in page 10, like 24, after "and," insert:

"(notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this section)".

It would take some time fully to explain why, for technical reasons, the insertion of these words is necessary. There is no sinister purpose behind them at all. They are consequential upon certain Amendments that we have made to Sub-section (1). Special protection is given by this Part of the Bill to dwelling-houses. We have introduced certain words into Subsection (1) by which the Commission have to have special regard to considerations of planning, but we do not want that provision in any way to impair the protection which the latter half of the Clause gives to dwelling-houses. That is why we propose to insert these words at this juncture.

:I think it would be convenient at this stage to ask what the intentions of the Government are as to the progress they seek to make.

:We should hope to get to the end of Clause 13. We should not consider taking the postponed Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, leave out from "opinion", to end of line 36.

As the Government have accepted the latter half of the Amendment, I think it would be an excellent plan to obtain from them a concession as regards the first part. Paragraph ( a ) ought to be left out since the aim prescribed in the words: b ), it would be an excellent idea to cancel paragraph ( a ) as well.

9.30 p.m.

:I support the Amendment. Throughout the country there is a very considerable fear of what the Government may attempt under this particular Sub-section. It has been put to me that many houses have been requisitioned and used during the period of the war for purposes which are undoubtedly of substantial value to the community, and that on the requisitioned properties a good deal of money has been spent to make them entirely suitable. But if the Government were to acquire these properties because they were of substantial value to the community, it would be to act unfairly to owners of properties which are actually the homes of the people. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to give attention to this Amendment.

:I should like to emphasise the vagueness of the phrase

"something which is of substantial value to the community."

Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to give some precedent. My home has been requisitioned by the War Office and they have put down, quite near the house, two large ranges of most magnificent and up-to-date ladies' and gentlemen's lavatories, which would be, in the right places, of substantial value to the community. I only mention that to show what a very vague phrase that is. Previously we had the word "financial" and I am not sure whether this means financial value to the community, in which case we ought to have the words made clear.

:As my hon. Friends are aware, the Sub-section which we now have under discussion directs the Commission to report against the acquisition of a dwelling house under the Bill except in one specific condition. Paragraph ( b ) of Sub-section (5) is already out of the Bill for all practical purposes. It involved a point raised on Second Reading and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to delete it, so we are now left with the position that the decision of the Commission in the case of a dwelling house is always final, and the Commission are directed to report against the acquisition of a dwelling house under the Bill unless the carrying out of the proposals is necessary in order to preserve something which is of substantial value to the community.

The sort of case we have in mind and the sort of difficulty we envisage, unless we have some words of this character in the Bill, is that these works have been carried out in war-time upon either requisitioned land or upon land which has remained technically in the occupation of its present owners or occupiers. You get the case of an airfield where there may be, in the centre of a fairly large area of open country, a small cottage, the owner or occupier of which has been turned out, unfortunately, in order that the aerodrome might be constructed. You have this little island spot in the middle of your area. It is obvious that that cottage can never be re-occupied if the aerodrome is to continue in being. Therefore, in this type of case, involving something of substantial value to the Government, such as a hospital, or some extensive work such as a filling factory—where there is a dwelling house comprised in an area of land of that kind and it cannot be used again for private occupation if the site as a whole is to be used to the best advantage—we think it should be in the power of the Commission to say that in those special circumstances a dwelling house might be acquired under the Bill.

:In view of the case put forward by the Financial Secretary, in which the advantage can obviously be seen by everybody, I see the necessity of this provision provided it is not ill-used, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

:I beg to move, in page 10, line 33, leave out paragraph ( b ).

This is designed to give effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an earlier stage. It had been thought that compulsory purchase in these circumstances might be really in the interests of the owner of the dwelling house, but we have considered the possibility that there are other reasons than economic which would make the retention desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, at end, add:

"Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in relation to any dwelling house the construction of which was Government war work."

The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the protection which is normally given to dwelling houses under the Bill extending to dwelling houses which have been erected by the Government as part of the war work concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, after the words last inserted, add:

"(6) Where the proposals are for the acquisition of any land under Section five of this Act and—

The Committee will see that the Commission can report that the proposals shall not be proceeded with if the land acquired consists, as to the whole or any part, of a common, and also where the Commission are of the opinion that the works in question are not both substantial and permanent in their nature. This really serves the purpose of the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge), in page 10, line 43, at end, add:

"(6) In considering proposals for the acquisition of land forming part of a common to which the public have rights of access or any open space, the Commission shall report that the carrying out of the proposals ought not to be proceeded with unless, in their opinion. Government war works of a permanent character and of substantial value have been constructed on the land."

This wording is not acceptable because it does not allow for the fact that, while the proposals for purchase may include a piece of common land, the actual works for which the use of the land as a whole is necessary may not be on the common land. I think that my hon. Friend and those who are interested in his point of view will consider that we have met the point by the Amendment I now move.

:It is only right that those of us who have been fighting on behalf of the commons should say "Thank you" for this valuable Amendment. It will help us in our further consideration of the commons question on Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

:I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, after the words last added, add:

"( b ) In every case the onus of establishing that the proposals are reasonable shall rest upon the Minister."

We have spent a little time in painting a pretty picture of the various things the Commission will have to look at. We have to remember that the Commission will have coming before them some Minister seeking to acquire some property, and they will have to decide what is right and proper. What the Government have not yet given is any guide or ruling to the Commission as to the manner in which they should act. It may be said that it is unnecessary, but I do not believe in leaving matters of that sort to chance. The Commission will not hold an inquest over a dead body. It will have to give a legal decision, and there will be a plaintiff in the form of the Minister and a defendant in the form of the objector. Therefore, when the matter comes before the Commission and there is an objection it should be made clear beyond any possibility of doubt that the onus of satisfying the Commission that the proposals put before the Commission are right should rest upon the Minister and it should not rest with the individual objector to have to satisfy the Commission that the proposals are not justified.

:I desire very briefly to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), not that I consider these words are really necessary. It seems to me that as the Bill stands the onus rests upon the Minister. Certainly it ought to rest upon the Minister, and if my right hon. and learned Friend is able to say that these words are unnecessary I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

:I desire to support this Amendment. It seems to me necessary to have some clarity as to where the onus lies in a matter of this kind. There are in this Clause many questions to which the Minister has to turn his attention; one was mentioned a moment ago, as to whether a particular thing was of substantial value to the community. I submit it will both simplify the procedure and certainly make it easier for the Commission to work if the issues are clearly defined, so that some person has to establish a right. As was said a moment ago, it is difficult to know whether a thing is of substantial value to the community or not. It is a matter on which different people may have different opinions. There are only two views about this. Either the onus is already on the Minister, as the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) said, or, if that is not so and it is not apparent from the Bill at the moment, then it is desirable that the words should be inserted so that the matter is beyond doubt.

:I sympathise with what is in the minds of my hon. and learned Friends, but I should like to point out a difficulty. I am sure they will recognise it. They are all familiar with the law and with the fact that rule as to the onus of proof exists because in a court you proceed secundum allegata et probata, that is, according to what is alleged and proved. You have to allow for the moment when there is no evidence one way before the court and to provide for what happens. That does not apply when the whole matter has been examined. You have all the facts before the tribunal, and then it is a matter of the conclusion you have to draw.

I have an extraordinarily bitter memory of that rule of law, because I once tried to put it in the House of Lords in this way: "There you are. The onus of proof is so and so, and no evidence to discharge that onus exists, and I ought to succeed in my appeal." I was told, with the utmost frankness and vigour by the learned Lords, in their judicial capacity: "All the facts are certainly before the court, but it is not a question of where the onus lies. It is a question of what is the true inference from all the facts." I hope my hon. and learned Friends do not question that rule, because I can give them convincing and high authority. That is the kind of matter with which the Commission will have to deal.

In this case they are under a duty to inquire into the proposal and to report what is reasonable. They are free to ask any question or to make any inquiry. Let me take an example which we dealt with to-day and is very near the hearts of many hon. Members who have been considering the Bill, and that is the planning position. There is a provision that after all planning matters have been considered by the promoting Minister, the proposal is put forward to the Commission: If the Commission still feel there is something on which they ought to have more information they can ask the Minister of Town and Country Planning for his assistance. This Committee has said that they must put it before him. It is something which contributes to their general stock of knowledge on which they, as reasonable and well-informed people, will come to their conclusion.

Therefore I put my difficulty to my hon. and learned Friends in this way: One does not want this matter to be decided on what the Minister puts forward or what the owner puts forward, but on what is the relevant information before the Commission, with such information and experience as the Commission have themselves. There is a difference between the case in which you are asking a tribunal to come to the best conclusion possible in a matter partaking of forming a general opinion in the interests of all parties involved, and in a limited sense in the national interests, and asking them to come to a conclusion according to proof. For example, has someone taken away property without a claim of right, and so on as one would, in an ordinary case of theft. It is a difficult problem. If you put in a provision of that kind, it would convey that the Commission were to act not upon their general opinion but upon the way in which the case is left by the parties. I do not care and am not considering it from the point of view of the Minister vis-à-vis the private owner or anyone else. I am considering it from the point of view of getting a sound result. Therefore, with the utmost respect for the point of view of my hon. Friends—the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) has many times heard me sum up on the onus of proof in another capacity—I ask them to come to the conclusion that it is not applicable to this subject matter, however desirable and essential it is to English law.

:I am glad I put down this Amendment. I think we have had a very valuable contribution from the Solicitor-General. He has converted me to the view that it would be wrong to insert the proposed words in the Bill. In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.52 p.m.

:I raised a point during consideration of Sub-section (2), and I am still concerned, before we part with this Clause, to get some assurance that the interests of owners of what is called "contiguous" land, are covered under the terms of the Sub-section. It appears to me that owners of contiguous land, whose land may be acquired, are in quite a different category from any of the suggested cases. When answering my previous point, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, as regards the owners of contiguous land, the point as to the financial advantage which would accrue to any objector, if the land were not acquired, cannot arise. I think it might arise, on the question of access. The owner of contiguous land might be able to blackmail the owner of land adjacent to him on the access question, unless the land were acquired. That is one of the points that was made in regard to the necessity of being able to acquire contiguous land. I think the case of the owner of contiguous land whose case has to be considered before the Commission is so different, from the case of the owner of the "immediate" land that it is deserving of special mention, and of special guidance to the Commission. He really cannot be considered as coming under the general definition—that the question of the acquisition of his land should depend on the question as to whether works should be preserved or not, because no works have been erected or developed on his land. He is not immediately interested in anything that has been done on his land because nothing need have been done on it at all. He is merely brought into the picture, and quite rightly, to enable land on which money has been spent at public expense to be reserved, or acquired in some way, so that the public purse shall not suffer, or shall suffer as little as possible. I am not attempting to argue against the powers that are sought in relation to the acquisition of contiguous land. I only fear that unless we define the position of the owner of contiguous land in this Clause the particular case will not get the particular attention it deserves.

:We will certainly consider anything on this point which my hon. Friend cares to put down between now and the Report stage. I think I can reassure him a little by saying that adjacent or contiguous land is subject to the provisions of Clauses 5 and 6. Before the Minister can put forward a proposal for acquisition under Clause 5, he has to be of the opinion that the adjacent land

"must be held with the site of the works if the works are to be properly utilised and maintained,"

and there is a similar provision in Clause 6. Not only will the Commission have to bear in mind all the relevant considerations of amenity and planning and so forth, but also they will have to be satisfied that the opinion of the Minister under Clause 5 is rightly held by him. If my hon. and gallant Friend cares to take this matter further, he can put down an Amendment for the Report stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Duration of powers under Part II.)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 11, leave out "two years," and insert "twelve months."

It is agreed that some limitation must be placed upon the powers conferred under this Part of the Bill. I feel that for all owners, whether they be public owners or private owners, the shorter the period, the better. The Clause makes it two years from the end of the war period. What is the war period? The definition is clear. It is the period when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, is in force. Nobody here is under any misapprehension but that the Emergency Powers Act is going on for a very long time. It is not going to end with the war against Germany. It may last some time even after the defeat of Japan. It is almost certain that it will be at least 12 months, and possibly two years, from this summer before the period starts. That means that this power may be enforced for four years further; it almost certainly will be, unless this Amendment is accepted, for a further three years. I, therefore, submit that the limitation to 12 months is reasonable.

I regard this Amendment as very important. This war will have a longer ending than the last war had. It will be a two-stage ending. A great deal of the works now are ripe for de-requisitioning. One of the reasons holding up de-requisitioning of buildings is that the Government have not yet made up their mind what they want to acquire under this Act when it is passed, and what they want to give back to the owners. What was done at the end of the last war, or in the middle of the war? There, the Government fixed a period, for the major part of the requisitioned land, of 12 months. It is quite true that, for certain land—land that was in the occupation of Government Departments and which was required for their enjoyment—the period was made three years, but as regards all the other land, and all other rights, including all rights enjoyed by the Admiralty, the Army Council and the Ministry of Munitions, the period is limited to 12 months. I say that, if, in 1916, our predecessors in Parliament made this limit 12 months, we should do the same here, and, if the Government are going to say that, in certain cases, they want two years, but, in the majority of cases, they want 12 months, let them put that suggestion on the Order Paper.

10 p.m.

I do not know what the experience of other hon. Members in this matter is, but I am alarmed at the situation in my constituency, and in neighbouring constituencies. I am alarmed at the large number of houses that have remained empty, and at the large number of camps that have remained empty. These should be derequisitioned, but cannot be de-requisitioned because the Government Departments are thinking about what they are going to use them for after the war Acceptance of this Amendment by the Government, or by the Committee—and I think we ought to press it—will clear up the minds of these Government Departments and make them take a decision on de-requisitioning a good deal earlier than they would, with the Bill in its present form. I think one of the reasons why there has been a slowing-up of de-requisitioning is because this Bill was published at the end of last year, with this two-year period in it. That it has made Government Departments think that there will be plenty of time. But the war with Japan will last for some time; I do not want to make the readers of the "Sunday Express" feel still more pessimistic, but, clearly, there is to be no early end to the war period, and no early end to the war with Japan. But there is a great deal of property on which a decision could be taken early.

May I take the argument which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury used earlier? We want an early decision on the question of Government factories in order to deal with the problem of employment, but, by putting in this long period of two years, you are going to make these Government Departments slow in taking a decision on what is to be done about the Government factories erected in the country. I do not know if the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is boiling up for an interjection, or whether his gesture is—

My gesture is one of natural impatience at the absurdity of the hon. Member's argument.

I can quite understand that the hon. Gentleman desires that the whole matter should be left in a state of flux. But, if you want a decision early, and if you want to get the export trade started, it is right that the business man, the small man, should know whether the Government are going to take his land. [ Interruption. ] I thought that the Financial Secretary was about to intervene. It is a new form of interruption to talk across the Gangway.

:I do not know what is the difficulty of hon. Members opposite. We on this side attach considerable importance to this point, in spite of a certain amount of ridicule from the Socialists. I know exactly why they take this attitude. It is because they want to do down the small business man. I ask the Chancellor to accept this Amendment.

:I support this Amendment not only because the war period is an indefinite one, but because the official end of the last war was much later than the actual end of the war. It is not only a question of our going back to the precedent of the 12 months in the last war. It is a question of bearing in mind that if the conditions are at all similar, the official end of the war period is likely to be a long time after the actual end of the war, whenever that may be. I think it very important that owners of property—and all concerned, in fact—should not be kept on tenterhooks as to when the occupation of their property is likely to be ended. It is a fact that not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but I think all over the Kingdom, there are many empty premises—I will put it as widely as that—which are no longer used, or only very slightly used, by various Government Departments. I do not know what is the reason. I rather think that once a Government Department gets its claws on to any form of property, it is very reluctant to withdraw those claws.

The fact remains that there are many premises no longer used, not only private premises but also premises which have been requisitioned for Civil Defence and other purposes. In my own county we have applied for release of a considerable number of premises which have been requisitioned, for Civil Defence purposes, but the Ministry of Home Security, acting through its minions in the regional organisation, refuses to relinquish them, or to give any reason for continuing to occupy them. Some of them are public buildings in the sense that they are the property of urban and other district councils, and we do not want them any more for Civil Defence, but we cannot get the Government to give them up. So we have to keep them, and it is costing the county money to pay for these premises which we still, nominally, occupy but actually do not use because we cannot get leave to give them up. It seems to me that we want this whole matter clarified, and this Amendment, if it is accepted, will be fair to all concerned and will enable Government Departments to do what they apparently find it difficult to do in a great many cases, to make up their minds.

:What is the point of holding up the Committee on an Amendment of this sort? It really is absurd. I am sorry but I must ask the supporters of the Amendment to consider the matter again. By substituting one year for two years, what do they hope to gain? [HON. MEMBERS; "One year."] If they will look at the Sub-section (1) of Clause 13, they will see that they gain nothing of the sort, because what they do is to excite the Government to serve notice within one year. After that, the thing can go on indefinitely. It says: Department do? They will take a purely safety decision, serve a notice and at once will be outside the restrictions. Having served notice they will escape the whole thing, and years may elapse before they make the notice good. They need not bring the matter before the Commission at all, and the individual who is subject to an order, or notice of intention to buy, will not know when he will be brought before the Commission for a decision.

I think it is far better to give the Departments a little more time in which to make up their minds whether they have a substantial desire to acquire land or retain certain buldings in the permanent service of the Crown, and not hasten them into making a decision which, sub sequently, they might not want to exercise. Furthermore, two years is not an unreasonable time—

:Surely not. We know very well that at the end of the war an enormous burden will be thrown upon the administrative machinery of this country. Whether we on this side, or those on that side, succeed in getting a majority at the next Election everybody knows that a very considerable administrative burden will be thrown upon Government Departments. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask a Government Department to make up their mind within two years. I warn my hon. Friends opposite that if they succeed in getting the Government to do it in one year, they will merely be precipitating a shower of confetti notices from Government Departments on owner-occupiers, in order to protect the Government's right to take action later.

:I have never heard in all my life such confused reasoning as that which has come from my hon. Friend above the Gangway (Mr. A. Bevan). He based his arguments on talk about a period of excitability, and I must say I have never heard that phrase before. He said that hasty and ill-considered decisions would be the result of the Amendment, during this period of peculiar excitement—

10.15 p.m.

:What I said was that if you force a Government Department too quickly they will serve notice in all marginal cases, and they would be protected against anything the Clause could do.

:With all due respect, may I say I have never known a Government Department act too quickly. I have known them to act with considerable delay, but not too quickly. A very strong case was made out by the hon. Members who moved and supported the Amendment. In this Bill, vast powers are being given—an action of almost daily occurrence now—to the Executive, and they may be necessary; I am not prepared to say they are not. But if we want to say to the British public "You must get on with it, you must not waste one moment, the war effort must continue into the peace period, you must put all your energies into restoring the export industry, you have not a moment to waste," I think it is a particularly bad example for the Government to say "We are going to take just as long as we like." I think they must be forced to make up their minds, and for this reason I think the Amendment ought to be accepted. There has been reference to periods of 12 months, two years, even three years, and I think three years is quite sufficient time for a Government Department to decide whether they are going to be interested in acquiring property or not. I hope my hon. Friends will have the courage to press this Amendment which, if not supported from above the Gangway, is supported from other quarters of the Committee.

:I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if they heard what the Government's attitude is towards this Amendment. We have had a fairly long Debate; I make no complaint about that, but I am anxious that my hon. Friends should return fighting fit when this Bill comes up for discussion again, as it probably will before very long. My hon. and gallant Friend has moved to reduce the period from two years to 12 months. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in supporting the Amendment compared the present position with what took place during the last war. I have in my hands a copy of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act of 1916, and it makes a very interesting comparison with what we are discussing in the present Bill. The Act of that year provided that

"the power of acquisition conferred by this Act shall be exercisable ( a )"—

this is the main case—

"in the case of land in the possession of an occupying Department or of land and rights required for the proper enjoyment thereof by the occupying Department, at any time whilst the Department is in possession, but not later than three years after the termination of the present war."

As hon. Members are aware, the last war did not officially end until 1921, so that the powers of acquisition under the 1916 Act continued until 1924. That refers to the main case, where the occupying Department is in possession of the land. It is true that there was a shorter period mentioned in the case of other lands, but those were lands where the Government Department were mere squatters and had served no requisitioning notice.

:Paragraph ( b ) reads:

"In the case of other land, or rights by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Ministry of Munitions, at any time during the present war or within twelve months after the termination thereof."

That is to say, under paragraph ( b ), where the Government were mere squatters in the last war, the rights of purchase extended to the year 1922. What will be the position under the present Bill? The Bill provides that the rights shall be exercisable for two years after the termination of the war period—quite a different thing, of course, from the termination of the war, which is in the Act of 1916, because the war period is defined in the definition Clause of this Bill as being the date when the Emergency Powers Act expires. As regards the expiration of the Emergency Powers Act, the position is that it has to be renewed by Parliament from year to year, and may be terminated at any time by Order in Council when His Majesty is satisfied that the emergency is at an end. I am quite confident that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will want to see the Emergency Powers Act terminated at the earliest possible moment after the wars with Germany and Japan are over. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee want to see a termination of the legislative dim-out under which we have lived for the past six years.

:Will my right hon. Friend complete the parallel? Will he tell us when the Defence of the Realm Act for the last war terminated?

:That has no connection with my argument. What I say is that under this Bill the powers of compulsory acquisition will end two years after the time when Parliament decides that the Emergency Powers Act shall not further continue. In my view, that period will be considerably less than the corresponding period after the last war. The problem which the Departments have to face is not smaller than in the corresponding period after the last war. It is, in fact, as everybody knows, much greater; and it is true that a great deal of policy will have to be settled before firm decisions can be taken as to whether certain properties should be permanently owned by the Government or not. Take the outstanding case: The Government have not yet settled whether there is to be compulsory military service in peace time, and quite obviously the number of camps which the Government will require in peace time must depend upon a decision of policy of that character. Nobody wants hasty or foolish decisions on policy to be taken, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, you will get better decisions taken on a number of broad issues of policy if you give the Government a reasonable time in which to take them. Moreover, it is true that, if you limit the Government unduly, proposals will be initiated in many hundreds of thousands of cases where ultimate purchase will never be undertaken and great confusion and misunderstanding will arise in consequence. I hope the Committee will see that it is reasonable to give the Government two years in which to formulate certain big decisions of policy and decide in regard to each property whether or not it is one which it will be necessary for them to acquire. For that reason I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

:I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, at end, insert:

"Provided that the said powers shall in any event cease to be exercisable if they are not exercised before the expiration of four years from the end of the war period."

This point is really at the other end of the scale from the Amendment with which we have just finished. I believe four years would give a reasonable time in which to complete all the arrangements necessary under the Bill.

:If the Amendment is to be taken as requiring that the whole process of acquisition and the settling of compensation and the execution of the conveyances must be settled by the end of the four years period, I do not think that would appeal to anyone. I should be surprised if my hon. and gallant Friend suggested it, because it would not only be inconvenient to the landowner who had reconciled himself to losing his land as soon as he got notice to treat and made arrangements accordingly, but it would also put a premium on the activities of landowners who wanted to hang out and obstruct the process of acquisition by playing out time in the later stages. I do not think that view of it would be practical politics. If my hon. and gallant Friend means by the Amendment, though it does not say it, that four years is to fix the notice to treat, that the notice to treat must follow the publication of the proposals at the latest within four years from the end of the war period, that is a different matter. There would be no great harm in it, but no great good, because we want to see that the proceedings before the Commission do not hang out anything like two years. I do not think the Committee would like to be a party to any suggestion that the proceedings before the Commission can be made to hang out for two years. So that if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes us to put the more limited interpretation on his Amendment, I do not think that is very helpful either. As it is not clear which of these two undesirable things the Amendment means I would with respect ask the Committee not to accept it.

10.30 p.m.

:I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will clear up the difficulty. It may be that we, without an array of legal advisers behind us, have not put forward the correct Amendment to deal with the evil suggested by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). Surely the Solicitor-General ought to clear up the difficulty in which the whole Committee is placed. We have learned to-day what some of us had suspected before when we put down this Amendment, that Government Departments all over the country will serve notices to treat in order that they can make up their minds in due course. As a result, industry and agriculture will remain in a state of stagnation for a number of years. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to put down some Amendment, if they do not like this one, to stop abuses. I know a number of aerodromes all over the country—as, I have been pulled up once already for giving security information, I will not state the number—and farmers are asking when they can get back on to those aerodromes so that they may get stock on to the land, and in some cases, cultivate it. This is rather a vital question for them and yet the Secretary of State for Air, or, indeed, the Minister of Civil Aviation can serve a notice to treat, and farming operations on the whole of these hundreds of thousands of acres will be held up. This is actual fact. It is happening all over the country. Will the Government between now and Report stage, if they are unwilling to accept the words we submit, put in something which makes it quite clear that a notice to treat after, say, 12 months goes bad—if I may use the expression—and cannot be acted on? I want the Government to make up their minds as soon as possible, so that this country can get back from war to peace. I believe full employment in industry and agriculture depends on the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman drafts the Amendment.

:I should like to say a word in support of what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said. I do not often agree with him, but I think there is substance in what he says. I could argue against him on the previous Amendment, on the two-year discussion, but I agree with him now that to limit the period during which the Government must come to a decision and act is not unreasonable. In fact, it means five years, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has pointed out. If the Solicitor-General objects to the Amend- ment as it stands, but would accept a modification of it, I would support him. It is desirable to stimulate the Government in coming to a decision. I know as a manufacturer how difficult that is. Heaven knows what is going to happen if the Government have things at their disposal and come to no decision and the land goes to wrack and ruin because the Government will not decide. I think the Government should agree to the limitation.

:I am sure it is reasonable that something should be inserted in this Bill which will limit the period of time within which Departments are able to exercise the very extensive powers this Bill confers upon them. It is all very well to say we shall get better decisions if they are not made too soon. It is not only Government Departments that have to make decisions in the public interest. There are the local authorities. This Bill applies to land belonging to local authorities, and there we are in precisely the same position. They may possess land, at present under requisition, which may be desirable for housing purposes, and they do possess land which is available for public open spaces. It is important that they should know within a reasonable time whether the land in the possession of Government Departments is to come back to them to be available for public purposes again, or whether they will have to look out for other land. This important matter should not be disregarded, and the local authorities will have to decide in just the same way as Government Departments. They ought not to be kept waiting for an indefinite period before being told whether land which has been requisitioned is to come back to them.

:I want to be practical in this matter. It is really difficult, as the Committee appreciates, because the Amendment gives two limits. One is that the relevant agreement to buy, or notice to treat, has been made in a period of two years. To that my right hon. Friend would have no objection. It is on the second one that I want to know what is in my hon. and learned Friend's mind. If notice of proposals under these powers has been published, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, before the expiration of the two years' period, what is it that my hon. Friends are seeking to achieve? What is the limitation they want to put on after that period? Do they want to say that after the proposal has been published by the Minister there should be a limitation of the period in which notice to treat is to be given? I want to know exactly what is in their minds. I will certainly consider it, but for the reasons I have given previously I cannot accept the proposal when it might allow of the whole thing being hung up by a legal quibble. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that he would like to hear a concrete suggestion. What I should like is a concrete suggestion from my hon. Friends as to their period of limitation and what they hang it on. I hope my hon. and learned Friend does not mind my interrupting, but I want to know what he wants.

:I am not clear as the Bill stands whether there is any period of limitation at all. I think what the Committee desire to know is whether it is intended to initiate proceedings which the Bill contemplates by serving notice to treat.

:I am bound, in consistency with my previous position, to support the contention now advanced from the other side of the Committee. I believe that the frontiers of private and public action ought to be clearly defined. It is a very bad thing indeed for private citizens not to know where their powers begin and end and where the public power begins and ends. I believe the best kind of system is that in which the public position is clearly defined and in which the private position is clearly defined. Now we have a situation where no one knows where he is. As soon as the Government serve notice to treat, they can sit back and need take no further action at all because they suffer no penalty. As a matter of fact, in spite of what the Solicitor-General says—and I listen to him with the greatest possible pleasure, because I know of no more courteous Law Officer than he is—I am bound to say that the source of delay almost inevitably comes from the Government and not from the private person, because the latter wants a decision. He wants to know whether his property is going to be restored to him or not and whether he can use it or not. He wants to make his private plans and it is a per- fectly natural and reputable thing to want. The source of delay comes from the Government side, because they are the people who are uncertain whether they want to retain it permanently or not. Therefore it seems to me that the first part of the Solicitor-General's argument falls to the ground.

We have reached the position where we ought to impose on the Government a penalty for laggard action and the question is how it should be done, and I agree at once that it is very difficult. "Exercisable" is a very difficult word. What does "exercisable" mean? It really means "determined"; actually that the conflict between the State and the private owner shall be determined within four years. "Exercisable" is not a good word because it really means that a position shall be reached as to the disposal of the property within four or five years. The word "determined" is better because the Government will have exercised their intention by instituting action on serving notice, but the issue will not have been determined until the claims of the State and the claims of private persons have been arbitrated upon by the Commission. Would it not be a good thing if the whole thing were done in stages? I am merely thinking on my feet now. Is it not possible to put up a danger signal at a certain time? Is it not possible on the Report stage for a form of words to be decided by which the authorities are warned that unless they reach a determination of the issue within a period from this new notice, the property returns to the private owner with all the rights attached to it; that the notice to treat, in other words, lapses unless a determination is reached on the subject within a certain period? Otherwise, it is an intolerable situation, because a private owner may be indefinitely in suspense and will never know where he is. He will not know what capital to expend upon it, or what the situation is going to be. A public authority will not know what money they should expend to develop it or for what purposes, either permanent or temporary, they should develop it. I am not saying that it is not bad in the case of a private person, because a private person must have some element of predictability about his property or how is he to behave in an intelligent way? I think that the Com- mittee are up against an important matter and that the Government should have an obligation placed upon them to reach a determination of the issue as between themselves and a private citizen.

10.45 p.m.

:I think there is a good deal of agreement in all quarters of the Committee on what we want to achieve by this Amendment. When I first read it I did not understand what it meant, for the reasons the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has given. I think that what the Committee desires is to see that the Commission shall give a proper and painstaking hearing to all objections put before them, but that the pace of the Commission's progress shall be regulated by the Commission itself and shall not be interfered with by delay on the part of Government Departments in bringing cases before them for hearing—cases in which proposals for acquisition under the Bill have been initiated by means of a notice under Clause 8 of the Bill. I am sure that is the object everyone in all quarters of the Committee has at heart.

:The hon. Member cannot have been present during the course of the discussion on Clause 8 (5) this afternoon. Everyone desires that the Commission should proceed expeditiously but carefully with the very important work entrusted to it, and that Government Departments should not be in a position, after initiating proposals by service of notice under Clause 8, to sit back and keep unfortunate owners on a line for an indefinite period. The machinery we want to devise is clearly something which will enable the Commission to feel the spur of either party to the proceedings to bring a case before them and get it disposed of. I have not the slightest doubt that we can contrive some such machinery, but I would be rash, I think, if I endeavoured to do so while standing on my feet here and now and thinking about this problem for the first time this afternoon. I will give the undertaking that we will devise some machinery on these lines and introduce it into the Bill in the Report stage.

:It is now 10.50 p.m. I am sure that we cannot finish to-night and there will be a gap of ten days when this Bill will not be considered. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reporting Progress now so that we can tackle this matter when we resume with fresher brains?

:I think that is a little unreasonable. We have only one more Amendment on Clause 13, which I think is consequential to a previous Amendment. That will take us to the end of Part II of the Bill with the exception of the very important Clause 4, on which we adjourned discussion the other day and which contains a subject which I am quite sure hon. Members would like to consider at the commencement of a new sitting.

:I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to tackle this at the Report stage after the Debate to-night has been considered and a form of words has been agreed. The difficulty is that when we have got that form of words it will be very difficult to alter them, because we shall either have to accept or reject them. It is my view that the Committee to-night have not given due regard to the original speech on this matter which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made, with his usual clarity and facility, when he pointed out the difficulty there would be in adding words to this Clause, a speech which the Committee appear to have completely ignored. I thought there was a great deal in what he said, and I do hope that when those words are considered behind the scenes they will be put in the form which we desire.

:What the Committee really desire is some assurance that there will be no undue delay between the time when the notice to treat is served and the time the matter is brought before the Commission.

:I would like to point out that "notice to treat" is a technical expression which does not come into this Bill. The notice to treat will follow all the proceedings before the Commission under the Bill. It comes in at a very much later stage.

:As I understood it, notice to treat is the first step in the proceedings before the Commission. I may have misunderstood it, but whatever that first step is I am sure that the Committee's real desire is that there should be no undue delay. If the assurance which has been given by my right hon. Friend does mean that there will be no undue delay between the notice to treat and when the matter comes before the Commission then I think this Amendment could be withdrawn.

:I have only one point to make, and that is whether my right hon. Friend, when considering this, can see whether words cannot be put in enabling the Commission to be given discretionary power to discharge the whole proceedings upon the application of a party on the ground of undue delay. I think we should give that power so that pressure can be brought to bear when there is evidence that a Government Department has been responsible for undue delay.

:I think that would not be reasonable at all, but instead would place a good many public Departments in a shocking muddle.

:I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to look into this to see if some such words could not be inserted.

:I thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance on this matter, which seems to meet the point we have been making, and as we want to get through with business I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

:I do not want at this late hour to detain the Committee, but I am not sure of the meaning of Sub-section (2) and of its relation with Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) reads:

"Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this section, any right to acquire land … shall not be available when the land on which the thing was done is no longer in the possession of any Minister or any such person."

Does that mean that when the land is no longer in the possession of the Minister there is no time limit with reference to this part of the Bill? It does not seem to me to link up with Sub-section (1) at all. Under Part VI there is a temporary power for the work to be removed, but it seems to me that under this Sub-section (2) the works could be left on the ground although the land is no longer in the possession of the Minister. I hope I have explained what seems to me rather a muddling Sub-section. I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to explain what it means.

:May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether, really, the content of Sub-section (2) should not be in the position of Sub-section (1), for it seems difficult to reconcile with the words "without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1)" in Subsection (2)? I think those words ought to go in front of what is now in Subjection (1). It seems to be very hard to reconcile the two-year period of limitation in Subsection (1) with this further condition precedent to the exercise of power which is made "without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1)." I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.

:In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) may I, as the simplest thing, give him in the clearest words I can find my paraphrase of the meaning of the Section? It provides that after possession of the land has been given up any power of acquisition arising in respect to anything done whilst possession was retained shall cease to be operative; and then, of course, there is the proviso that powers of acquisition shall remain operative after possession has been given up where an undertaking to rehabilitate land has been given but not carried out. That is without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1) which, in my view, has this meaning: that you have two limitations already imposed by Sub-section (1), the limitation on the notice to treat and the limitation on the notice of proposal. But apart from these limitations, and without any adverse effect on their operations, you have the further limitation which I have just explained, the limitation that after possession of the land has been given up any power of acquisition in respect of anything done whilst possession was held shall cease to be valid. That is the meaning of it. With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I will be very willing, of course, to consider that point and see whether his suggestion as to drafting is a better one than ours.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[ Mr. Drewe. ]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th April, approved.—[ Mr. Grimston. ]

Adjournment

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Drewe. ]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute past Eleven o'Clock.