I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "may," to insert:

"where they are unable to take such a lease by agreement."

This is a simple Amendment, but an important one. Clause 1 is drafted so as to give two alternative powers to a local authority if and when they are satisfied on each of the three conditions specified in subsection (1). These two alternative powers are put simply and without qualification as alternative. The local authority may take a lease of the land by agreement, or may be authorised by the Minister to take possession of the land compulsorily.

In our view, that provision is not satisfactory put in those terms. We believe that what the Bill should provide is that the local authority has power to take a lease by agreement, and, failing that, to requisition the land under compulsory powers. It is indeed, or it certainly was, inherent in our system that voluntary powers are not and should not be enforced until voluntary persuasion has failed and can be shown to have failed, and that is the system which we suggest should come within the provision of this subsection. If the words which are proposed to be inserted are incorporated in the Bill it then becomes clear that the local authority cannot proceed to the use of compulsory powers until the powers of voluntary persuasion and negotiation have failed.

Now it may very well be that the right hon. Gentleman will say that local authorities, being reasonable bodies, will not, in fact, proceed to the use of compulsory powers until the use of voluntary powers—that is to say, the taking of a lease by voluntary negotiation—has failed and it may well be, as, I am sure, it will be, in the great majority of cases, at any rate, that that will be so. However, there is no reason why there should not be a statutory provision to that effect. Indeed, there is every reason why there should be a statutory provision to ensure that, in the minority of cases where it may otherwise not be so, it will be so under the terms of this Bill.

I did cite on Second Reading one comparison which I felt was relevant, and that was the recent comparison from Section 43 of the Town and Country Planing Act, 1947. As the Committee knows, Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is the Section whereby the Central Land Board has power to acquire compulsorily in certain cases: and subsection (2) of that Section reads:

"If the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that the Board should acquire any land for any such purpose as aforesaid, and that the Board are unable to acquire the land by agreement on reasonable terms, he may authorise the Board the acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this section."

From the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman and Members opposite, I am citing, I hope, a very respectable precedent when I cite Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I have never hidden my own view that it is an extremely controversial Section indeed, but the subsection I have just read out seems to me to be probably the most reasonable feature of that highly controversial Section. Therefore, it seems to us that it would be a good thing to borrow the words of that Section and reproduce them in this Clause of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would hardly like, I imagine, to lag behind the Minister of Town and Country Planning in reasonableness, or in regard for the liberties of the subject. Therefore, with that example, and, it may be, that challenge before him, I confidently hope that he will see the reasonableness of the Amendment. It is, as I say, in terms a simple Amendment. It in no way complicates the Bill, and it gives statutory force to a principle which, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee value. For those reasons I move the Amendment.

I rise only to say that I hope that at the beginning of these proceedings the right hon. Gentleman will show the same co-operation now that we showed on Second Reading. This Amendment in no way conflicts with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he spoke on Second Reading. I have the report of his speech before me, but as, I am sure, his words are still fresh in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman I do not intend to read out even the parts of it relevant to this matter. I would only say that all the way through his speech he showed his determination to try to bring about what he wanted, first, by full and free voluntary agreement between any of the parties, before resorting to any of the strong compulsory powers that are contained in this Bill.

We are not in any way against the putting into operation of compulsory powers. I can assure hon. Members opposite that that is perfectly true. What we do feel, though, is that they should be the last resort, and that before they are put into operation, the right hon. Gentleman should try to see that friendly negotiation takes place so that all the parties will feel, not only that they are not in any way being overridden, but that they are being given a fair and free chance to take part in what we all desire, which is the clearing of those bombed sites.

As I have ventured to remark before—I think probably privately; my mind cannot recall the exact circumstances—I cannot make up my mind whether I prefer to have a Bill opposed on Second Reading or unopposed on Second Reading. My experience has taught me that it is very much more difficult in Committee if the Bill has not been opposed on Second Reading, because then at the Committee stage we have a number of Second Reading points which, were they carried, would have the effect of wrecking the Bill entirely.

The right hon. Gentleman now says we have a number of Second Reading points in Committee. How does he square that with his observation on second Reading that we were bringing up a number of Committee points on Second Reading?

There is nothing at all to prevent the hon. Member from doing both—from putting Committee points on Second Reading and Second Reading points in Committee—which is precisely what the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in doing.

They are the same points.

If one wills the end one really must will the means. If it be the fact that the House of Commons has generally ageed that these bombed sites should be cleared up and should be put into proper order, then hon. Members ought not to insist on Amendments which make that practically impossible. This is precisely one of those Amendments, and the hon. Member has pleaded a very heavy argument indeed. First of all, he quotes from another Act the machinery for compulsory acquisition when, as a matter of fact, we are not discussing compulsory acquisition at all. We are discussing temporary possession, and surely it is not appropriate to apply to temporary possession machinery which has been laid down for compulsory acquisition. Therefore, his comparison is, I think, entirely beside the point.

Moreover, there are a number of Amendments on the Paper of much the same altitude, to import into this slender and, I thought, generally agreed Measure machinery which is used in connection with major legislation, and which, if it were put into the Bill, would have the effect of frightening all the local authorities away, so that the Bill would become abortive from the very beginning.

Let us see what we are asked to do by this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman says it is simple. It is simple, yes; but as simple as a bullet; it just kills the Bill from the very start. I will try to show how. In the first place, how is a local authority to obtain the permission of an owner who cannot be found? There is nothing in the Amendment about that at all. We do not know where are the owners of very many of these blitzed sites. They have no interest in them at the moment. That is part of the difficulty. They are entirely neglecting them because until they are developed or redeveloped, either the authority which is going to redevelop them, or the owner who is ultimately to be able to build upon them, has no interest in the matter at all. The owner does not bother about it, and the local authority has to search around for a very long time trying to find out who was, in fact, the owner of the property, or who had a right in it.

In many cases there is not only one person, remember, but a very large number who would have an interest or a share in only one of these blitzed sites. The local authority would have to search around trying to find each one of them, because if each one had not been asked for his consent the local authority could not take possession of the site.

Does that mean that the Minister does not intend to try to obtain consent by agreement?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait, I shall come to that later on. I am only pointing out that in a great city like London, where there are a number of participants in the ownership of a bombed site, to insist that the local authority should search out and obtain the consent of each one before proceeding to take possession of the site would frustrate the local authority at the very start. That is why we have put into the Bill the provision that the local authority can for clearing purposes enter into possession of the site in 24 hours. I notice that there is an Amendment down to that provision also.

We also provide that the local authority can put up a notice, such as is done in the short method of acquiring possession of land under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. In 1946 the House found it necessary to agree to that, because it was not always possible to find the owners, and at that time the House passed a Measure which I proposed to it which, in the case of house building, enabled a local authority which could not find the owner to put up a notice on the site. If that be the case where the possession of land is urgently required for housing purposes, and where complete possession is being taken for all time, it is surely reasonable to have such a provision in a Bill under which temporary possession is to be taken.

Secondly, the Amendment does not say how long the owner can spend parleying, even if he is discovered. He can simply delay, and if he does not consent action cannot be taken. How long must the local authority wait? The Amendment says nothing about that. It gives no definition of "reasonable time," so that all the owner need do is to refrain from giving consent, and the local authority will be delayed for very many months. I should have thought the hon. Member would be with me in wanting to get these blitzed sites cleared up. He ought not, therefore, in his passion for the defence of every piece of private property, to deny the means by which this can be carried out.

We shall, of course, by administrative action seek to obtain the consent of the owner where the owner can be readily found. That is the whole point. The Minister's authority has to be obtained if compulsory possession of the site is sought. If the local authority knows it can proceed by agreement it does so, and in such cases my consent would not be sought. But where the local authority intends to proceed to compulsory possession the consent of the Minister would be asked, and I should imagine that in such circumstances he would ask the local authority whether they had taken reasonable steps to obtain the consent of the owner of the property. I should have thought that in that way all requirements of reasonable conduct would be met, and I must therefore resist the Amendment.

I am really astonished at the right hon. Gentleman talking like that about this Amendment and saying that it would kill the Bill. Surely the Bill is not such a rotten Bill that it will be killed by an Amendment of this kind? We ought to give a little more thought to this, and not permit it to be dismissed by the Minister in that way. He says that a local authority often cannot find the owner. Surely that difficulty could be overcome, and instead of saying that this Amendment would wreck the Bill the Minister ought to try to see how this Amendment can be improved so as to satisfy his criticisms.

How would the hon. Gentleman suggest?

I will proceed to tell the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister himself is now trying to wreck the Amendment. Instead of doing that, let him consider how the Amendment might be improved. As the local authority has to advertise and give notice of their intention it would be perfectly easy to provide that, if no reply to such notice is received from any interested person within a very short period the local authority is entitled to assume that no proprietor can be found, and in the absence of any claimant to a proprietory interest it would be reasonable that the local authority should apply for authorisation for compulsory acquisition. I am sure my hon. Friend would be prepared to accept some such Amendment to his Amendment.

The Minister then asked how long the local authority would have to wait. Again, it would be the simplest thing to put a definite time limit in the Bill. He also said that this could be dealt with by administrative action, and that everybody is most anxious to be reasonable. As a result of our experience during this Parliament we have found that people prefer to have things in the Bill; they prefer to know how they stand and what their rights are, so that if they are dealt with in a high-handed way they have some redress.

I do think the Minister is exaggerating the point that one of the inconveniences of accepting this Amendment would be to frustrate local authorities because they would be unable to find the owners of sites. He is surely using the exception in order to prove a line of thought. He wishes, for administrative convenience, to streamline this Bill, as it were, and to give nobody the right of appeal; but in order to justify that, he says that local authorities will be impeded in their job of clearing these sites because they will not be able to find the owners. Admittedly, there may be cases in which the local authority does not know the owner of a site, but the Minister must admit that such cases are the exception and not the rule.

Oh, no.

To base his whole argument on that is surely specious. I therefore certainly support this Amendment.

I am sorry that the Minister has taken up this attitude, because I can assure him at once that we on this side of the Committee have no intention of wrecking this Bill. Indeed, we desire to see it go forward, and in putting down this Amendment we thought we were helping the right hon. Gentleman. During his Second Reading speech the Minister said most clearly that before granting compulsory acquisition he would make certain that everything had been done to secure agreement, and we are only seeking to put that into the Bill. We are doing that, and nothing more.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that our Amendment falls far short of what is necessary to secure what we desire, without providing a delay which would frighten the local authorities out of taking any action at all. If he would only think a little more deeply about some of our subsequent Amendments, to which he referred, he would find that fear unjustified. In a later Amendment, in Clause 3, page 2, line 31, in which we refer to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, we seek to make provision for missing owners, and also to ensure that there shall not be any undue delay. But that can be argued when we reach that Amendment.

This Amendment is in no way a wrecking Amendment. We merely put down what we thought the Minister desired. It is making absolutely certain that the local authorities exhaust the possibilities of agreement before they apply to the Minister. It is really saving the Minister a considerable amount of trouble. It is a beneficial Amendment, and for those reasons I am afraid I shall have to ask those who sit behind me to insist on dividing the Committee.

Before we take a decision on this matter, I should like to answer one or two of the points raised by the Minister in reply to the speech in which I commended this Amendment to the Committee. His first point was that the comparison of this procedure with the well known procedure regulating the compulsory acquisition of land is a comparison which should not be pressed. He says that, because he distinguishes between the case of taking permanent possession of land and taking temporary possession of land by requisitioning. There is a distinction between taking land for five or 10 years and taking land permanently, but it is a distinction of degree. I venture to suggest that a good deal of the land which is taken under compulsory requisitioning under this Bill will never find its way back to its original owners; it will be the first step, which will be followed in due course by compulsory acquisitioning. I think that the good sense of the Committee will suggest that the procedure should be followed except in such cases where it is inapplicable.

His second point was in regard to not being able to find the owners, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) have already referred to that point. The Minister exaggerates the difficulties of finding the owners of sites. The sites that are to be dealt with under this Bill are mainly in big cities, and the Minister has an inaccurate impression of the values of the sites in these cities if he really thinks that the owners are not aware of their ownership. If, in spite of every reasonable effort, the local authority cannot find the owner, then, quite clearly, they are unable to take the land by agreement within the terms of the Amendment. In other words, the Amendment acts as no bar at all, which was the principal reason put up by the Minister.

As the Committee are aware, local authorities are under a duty to try to identify the owner if they are to carry out the procedure of the Schedule for compulsory requisitioning. The, Minister must be very barren of argument if he has to attach such weight to such a fine point as that. He went on to say that in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, it had been necessary to incorporate a special Section to give powers for speedy compulsory acquisition, but he did not say that in every Act since incorporating that provision the Section giving power for speedy acquisition has been excluded. That, again, seems to be a very poor point on which to found his argument.

He made the point, which I anticipated he would make, that this is unnecessary because the local authorities would tend to do this administratively in any event. That point has also been fully and lucidly answered by my hon. Friend for Sutton Coldfield. People like to see, and are entitled to see, their rights on the Statute Book, so that if a local authority tends to be arbitrary or overriding in its demeanour, a person is able to point to the Statute Book and say, "These are the rights Parliament gave me. This is what Parliament said they would do."

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from "writing," to the end of line 33, and to insert:

"Before such authorisation is given the local authority shall make an application therefor to the Minister and the provisions of paragraph 3 (excepting the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) thereof and paragraphs (2) and (3) thereof) and paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, shall apply to the publication of a notice of the submission of such application and to the making and hearing of objections to the giving of an authorisation as if the making of such application were the submission of a compulsory purchase order under that Act and the giving of an authorisation were the confirming of such an order and save as aforesaid the provisions of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the giving of such an authorisation."

I want to assure the Minister of Health that the Amendment is not intended to be a wrecking one but is intended to help him to carry out the functions of the Bill. There is already laid down a code of procedure to be followed in the case of the compulsory acquisition of land. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there is a difference between compulsory acquisition of land for all time and compulsory acquisition for a period. In the Bill the period is five years, which may be extended to ten years. We do not know whether, at the end of ten years the period may not be extended for a further period. At any rate, there is no doubt that this is compulsory taking possession of land.

The submission I make is that we should follow the procedure, the code and the principles laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. A different procedure is proposed in the Bill. It consists, in the first place, of advertisements inserted in certain local newspapers and in requiring a notice to be served on the person who is entitled to possession of the land. When that is done, the person entitled to possession can make representations in writing to the Minister. So far, the procedure does not differ from what is laid down in the Act of 1946, which also provides for publication in the Press and for a notice being served. Up to that point there is no difference whatsoever. Then, the person who is entitled to the land, the owner or lessee, can submit his objections against the land being compulsorily acquired. On these objections being submitted and not being withdrawn, the Minister has to set in motion certain procedure. He can call for a public inquiry to be made or he can arrange for the objector to be given a hearing.

I want to stress the difference between making objections in writing and having a hearing. There are many people who are not competent to put into writing their objections but can very well state them verbally. In any case—and this is something which the right hon. Gentleman knows and will agree to—it is not just enough that justice should be done. Justice should also appear to be done. If the right hon. Gentleman is merely to consider some objections made in writing is will not appear to all concerned that justice is in fact being done.

It may be objected that the procedure of the Act is much too complicated. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said the same thing in the remarks he made upon the Amendment upon which the Committee has just divided. I suggest that the procedure is no more complicated than that which is proposed in the Bill. The Minister has then to consider if any person who has an interest is willing to put the land into a condition which is not detrimental to the amenities. When the right hon. Gentleman has considered that point he has to consider whether an objection has been made and whether the person interested is able to carry out the work that is required.

I submit that what the Minister ought to do is to conduct an inquiry. Therefore he might just as well do it under the procedure laid down in the 1946 Act as under the procedure proposed in the Bill. The procedure in the Act is preferable to that in the Bill. We think that from the point of view of the Minister and of the public it is far better to adhere to the procedure in the Act, which we believe to be more just, more expeditious and more satisfactory. We do not insist entirely upon the wording of the Amendment. I think we have made plain what purpose we have in mind, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the wording can be improved upon, we shall be willing to follow that course.

As I said in replying to the Debate on Second Reading, I feel that hon. Members opposite are making very heavy weather of the rather modest proposal in the Bill. I insisted then, as my right hon. Friend did, and we have insisted here again this morning, that this is purely a temporary measure of possession, and hon. Members opposite will insist upon suggesting that we should have the whole panoply of provisions which are proper no doubt, to questions of acquisition. I noted with some interest that one local government journal a little while ago, writing of this Bill before Second Reading, suggested that these compulsory powers might cause a little disturbance among old-fashioned real estate lawyers. I hope hon. Members opposite will not insist upon that qualification.

What we are trying to establish is a reasonably speedy procedure for the very limited and very laudable object of trying to get rid of some of our war damaged sites, which, as everybody agrees, are a nuisance and, indeed, a danger to the public. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) suggests that owners would have difficulty in putting their objections in writing. That is an extraordinary suggestion. Is it really impossible for an owner to find someone to write for him if he cannot do so himself or to help him in drafting his objections? It was a very weak and very limited argument. My right hon. Friend can always hold an inquiry or have a hearing of the parties, and he would do so where circumstances really warranted it, but to require it in all cases is quite absurd in a Bill which is of very limited purpose. For that reason the Committee should not agree to the Amendment.

I did not come to the House this morning to make a speech on this Bill because it never entered my mind, as a commonsense individual, that anybody would oppose what is so obviously a necessary precaution in view of existing circumstances. In my constituency of North Islington the matter is an extraordinarily difficult one. I have had a lot of correspondence recently about one bombed site. There are a number of owners of the site, and there are all kinds of difficulties. Amenities? There are just no amenities left round about that place. Horrible conditions have been brought about.

The procedure proposed here is very simple and straightforward, and it is a temporary provision. It does not inflict hardships, certainly none which are unnecessary, but at the present time the condition of bombed sites is inflicting gross hardships on people round about. We ought to have consideration for such people, and because owners have not taken steps which they might have taken and which they ought to have taken to remove nuisances, it is desirable to have this procedure. The long-winded alternative methods suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) seem quite off the mark.

No one who has travelled, as I frequently have, through the constituency of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) would quarrel for a moment with his views. We all know the urgency of the problem. There is no opposition to the main suggestion put forward in the Clause. We all feel that to get the owner to provide the necessary finance to secure proper amenity is much better than using public money for the purpose, and the Bill makes provision for him to do so.

But the owner does not do it.

Na doubt in many cases he does not, but in many cases he does, and one cannot generalise. However, when the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary rest themselves with such comfort on the temporary nature of this provision. I must point this out. So often, with the best will in the world, Governments of all complexions—it is not a party point—produce Measures which they describe as temporary and which even contain a time limit. The Minister is entitled to point to the fact that a time limit is provided but our experience shows—I am sure I shall have the assent of the hon. Member for North Islington who has been here a great many years—that upon the expiry of the period the Government of the day of whatever colour it may be finds good and sufficient reasons for prolongation or re-enactment. Does the hon. Member for North Islington wish to speak?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to my having been here a large number of years. That is true. I only wanted to say that the longer I am here, the less I am inclined to agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman hoping that he had a more helpful intervention to make than that. I do not think he would disagree with what I am saying now, however much he may disagree with other things I say. He must have in mind similar cases where the time limit in an Act is expiring and the Government of the day for some reason good to themselves, and very often good to all of us, decide upon prolongation. We frequently find all such Measures shovelled into the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill at the beginning of the Session and disposed of in an afternoon without a real opportunity for detailed consideration being given to them.

We shall be very lucky indeed if the necessity for this Measure is non-existent five or 10 years from now. A general curtailment of building is taking place. Anybody who knows anything about the educational position knows that on sites of one kind or another temporary prefabricated halls for the provision of school meals and so on are being put up, and everybody knows that they will be there for a minimum of 10 years. The Parliamentary Secretary is correct within the letter but I believe he will find he is wrong if he examines the spirit of the matter and the likely course of events.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) moved the Amendment for that reason. We feel this Bill is likely to be prolonged or re-enacted in the future, and if that is so, all we are asking is that there shall be a simple piece of machinery for inquiry. I do not believe that it means a great deal of delay. As the hon. Gentleman said, if owners are incapable of stating their case in writing they can find someone else to do it for them. There is not very much in that. It is a sort of suggestion for the relief and sustenance of lawyers, of whom I am not one. The same argument applies to inquiries. An owner would naturally instruct some legal gentleman to appear at the inquiry and put his case for him. This is a simple, important improvement of the Bill. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, in no sense is it a wrecking Amendment. It is a safeguard that where the machinery is set in operation there shall be every possible opportunity for owners to be heard and considered.

Before I come to the main point of the Amendment, I should like to make brief reference to the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) who made what I believe he will on reflection see was a somewhat ungracious interruption of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite).

The hon. Member for North Islington did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not sure whether he was here on that occasion, but I infer that he was not because he seemed to be making on this Amendment a speech which he would have made on Second Reading had he 'then been present. Had he been present on that occasion he would realise that it was agreed on all sides of the House that the fact that war damaged sites were in a dilapidated condition was not necessarily the fault of the owners of the sites, and many reasons were given in many speeches why that was so. If the hon. Member had taken the trouble, before intervening, to look at the report of the Second Reading Debate, he would not have made that point either. I will leave the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington at that.

The Amendment is couched in somewhat cumbrous phraseology, but it would have been open to the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it constituted legisla- tion by reference and for that reason was not a happy thing. The hon. Gentleman did not make that point but, in any event, though the language of the Amendment is perhaps complicated, its substance is simple and valid. All it does is to substitute a known and standardised code of procedure for the makeshift code specified in the Schedule to this Bill.

There are three main differences between the Schedule to this Bill and the recognised code under the 1946 Act. Two of them are comparatively unimportant. There is only one publication instead of two under this Schedule, and the time for making representations is 14 days instead of 21. On those points we on this side would not insist on the exact words of the 1946 code if it is thought that these lesser periods serve better the purpose of the Bill. So far as the third and important difference is concerned, the right of the owner to some sort of inquiry or, if not a public local inquiry, at any rate some hearing at which he can put his own case, that is obviously a point of considerable substance. After all, the concept, "I will hear the other side," is as old as British justice and it should never lightly be jettisoned by this House of Commons.

I hope I am not doing the Minister an injustice here, and I should be the first gladly to recognise it if I am, but it does not appear that the Minister attaches the same weight to these concepts of natural justice that some of us do. I was somewhat shocked and surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe the procedure in his Second Reading speech as

"the cumbrous and tedious machinery of compulsory purchase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1066.]

Those seem most inapposite and regrettable words to pour from the lips of the Minister responsible for the 1946 Act and also for much of the procedure of compulsory purchase. After all, the machinery he now condemns is his own. The First Schedule to the 1946 Act is his own creation. The Minister commended the 1946 Act to this House and piloted it through this House. It is therefore remarkable that he should now refer to it in those slighting terms.

What the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary say is that this procedure involves delay. How much delay? It need involve very little delay.

The time for the making of representations by objectors is short, so there is no delay there. Every other steps in the procedure is a step in the time-table fixed by the Minister. The Minister appoints the date for the inquiry or hearing, the Minister selects and appoints the inspector. It is up to the Minister whether a long or short time is taken on the consideration of that report and the publication of his decision. Every step involved in the machinery of compulsory purchase is administrative and the timetable is dealt with exclusively in Whitehall.

12.15 p.m.

Therefore it is not becoming for the Minister to complain of the delay in the procedure. If there is delay it is his own delay. I do not think there is so much delay. It is at any rate a good deal quicker than the normal procedure of the courts. If there is delay, it is not for the Minister to come here and complain, and to use it as a reason for not adopting the procedure. It is a reason for him to go back and look into his own administration and see where the delay occurs and how he can best get rid of it.

The point has been made by my hon. Friends that the taking of land for this length of time may be a permanency and, at any rate, is sufficiently serious to warrant that the citizen gets from this House his normal and natural rights. Even if it involves a little delay it is always true that the processes of justice do so. A ruthless procedure without regard to the rights of the citizen is always more rapid, and it may be more satisfactory from the administrative point of view, than a procedure rooted in the tradition of justice, but it is not more satisfactory from the point of view of the citizen and of those traditional rights which it is the privilege and duty of hon. Members of this House to defend.

We regard the machinery introduced into this Bill as a retrograde step in the direction of administrative law, and it is not a step that should be passed without challenge and opposition from this Committee. All that an objector has the right to receive under the Schedule is a bare notification of the decision of the Minister. He is not even entitled to know the reasons whereby the Minister has put aside his objections and has reached that decision. That, in my submission, is a most arbitrary procedure, and the Schedule is cast in terms which are by no means ones which should be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be supported, as it deserves to be.

I hope the Opposition will not press this Amendment and I suggest in all seriousness to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) that he ought not to invoke such majestic conceptions for such trivialities, otherwise he will lose all capacity for emphasis. If what he suggested is true, I find it difficult to understand why only 35 Members of his party have rallied to the defence of those principles of eternal justice which apparently are being violated by us at the present time. It shows an absence of a sense of proportion in the matter, and we ought not to use this occasion for the purpose of such wide-ranging discussions as the hon. Member has indulged in on two occasions this morning.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the principles of justice. Those were defined by myself as being the ancient principle of, "I will hear the other side." Will the right hon. Gentleman answer these two questions: first, does he or does he not agree with that? Secondly, is there any provision for the implementation of that in the Schedule?

As these people are the possessors of these bombed sites they could, as the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) has pointed out, be accused already of not doing part of their duty in not keeping the bombed sites in order. It is quite remarkable how the hon. Member for Hertford can be indignant for the owners of these neglected sites and have no indignation whatever for those who suffer from their condition at the present time. He really has a most extraordinary source of synthetic indignation.

What we are concerned about it to protect people who are suffering from these conditions, whereas what the hon. Member wants all the while is to make as difficult as possible the procedure to clear up the sites and put them in order.

No.

According to the Amendment, if any objection were taken by any possessor or part-possessor of a site, a local inquiry would have to be held.

A hearing, not an inquiry.

A hearing would have to be held. All the time the Opposition are continually asking us to, economise and not have special administrative machinery, but whenever we bring a Bill before the House which deals with property we are told we must keep in existence a vast apparatus for listening to every objection which is made. It would be entirely out of keeping with the purposes of the Bill if we had to hold a hearing every time an objection was made, and we ought not to agree to such a proposal.

Where the Minister is satisfied that the objection is a solid one, an inquiry can be held, but to insist that a hearing shall be held every time seems to us to be entirely unnecessary. What I am afraid of—I put this to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee—is that if we import into the Bill too much machinery, too many steps, then the local authorities—after all, the Bill is only permissive—will be disinclined to use it. We want local authorities to be active and willing agents for the purpose of clearing up the sites. Having got that main purpose in mind, we ought not to start doing something which the local authorities may find too objectionable to cause them to do their work. I really hope that the Committee will not press the Amendment.

I base the greater part of my argument on the fact that there is very little difference between the machinery in the Bill and that which is in the Act of 1946. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has pointed out, the delay, if there is any additional delay, is so slight as to be negligible. Neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary addressed themselves in any way to that point. They spoke of us trying to insist upon the whole panoply—that was the word used by the Parliamentary Secretary—when in fact there is little or no difference between the two.

If there is no substantial difference between the two, we cannot be offending to the extent which the hon. Member for Hertford suggests. The real difference is this: that if an objection, except on grounds of price, is made, the Minister must in every case hold a hearing. In other words he must, as the hon. Member for Hertford has suggested, be just in the sense that both sides must be heard. That is a very substantial difference indeed; so substantial, we say, as to make it difficult for local authorities to exercise these powers.

I am sorry, but I simply cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point at all. Consideration has to be given to the objection if objection is taken, and time has to be spent by someone going into it. His time might just as well be spent hearing from word of mouth what the objection is as studying it in writing. No additional delay whatever is caused by that procedure. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford said, there is a very great difference otherwise.

The Parliamentary Secretary rather twitted me for having said that people could not put their case so well in writing, but if he had a case would he be as satisfied if he could only put it in writing and could not hear the arguments from the other side? Of course he would not. There is all the difference in the world between having a hearing in which one is able to hear the arguments against one's

I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, after "enable," to insert:

"the necessary licences to be obtained and."

This is a point which I hope the Minister will accept after the arguments on previous Amendments, in which a certain amount of heat has been engendered. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that by this Amendment we are trying to assist him and carry out what he said in his Second reading speech:

"I want to make it clear that it is not proposed that the terms of this Bill if it becomes an Act should act to the disadvantage of a person in obtaining a licence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1068.]

By inserting these proposed words we would ensure that the point is looked after. We all realise that it is not so much time taken in carrying out work which delays development of a site, or the erection of the building. Much of the delay is caused by the actual obtaining of a licence. This difficulty may be increased in the future, as there is a tendency to tighten up on licences. There are occasions on which, when a local authority has used up its quota of licences for a purpose such as this, they say to the applicant, "If you come back next month, or in a few months', time, we may be able to help you, but we cannot help you at the moment." These words are proposed in order to cover such a situation. I think they tie up with the Minister's wishes and I hope that on this very small point he will accept the Amendment.

During the Second Reading the Minister interrupted my speech and we had rather a passage of arms on this point. Perhaps since then the right hon. Gentleman in spite of his many arduous duties, may have had time to give consideration to this point. He interrupted me, and I am glad he did so, to say that he had increased the range for repair work to be done to such a height that there was no excuse at all for repairs or building not to be undertaken. I have been very polite to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot continue to be polite, because he shows an extreme ignorance of the practical builder.

I am a builder and I constantly have to apply for licences. The right hon. Gentleman shows extreme ignorance of the difficulty of obtaining licences. When he authorises certain work to be done that is merely the start of the matter. One of the first things one comes up against is that the Ministry of Works, while agreeing that it is a reasonable project, say that one must wait a little longer, or they ask for specifications and, when these are rendered, they often sit on them for six weeks or two months. Then they say that the Board of Trade would not like so much controlled material to be used and ask if so much iron and steel can be cut out.

That is reasonable when there is a shortage of iron and steel, but it is appallingly difficult. The Ministry of Works are performing their functions, the Board of Trade are performing their functions, which alter from time to time in regard to scarce material and, in addition, there is the War Damage Commission. The right hon. Gentleman may be the only person with a large amount of money not minding what amount of his private fortune he spends, but those who want to get repairs done, want to be assured that they will get recovery from the War Damage Commission. The Commission have to be asked for prior approval before the work is undertaken and hon. Members must realise that the question of getting prior approval from the War Damage Commission is most essential. It means that if a claim is sent in for work which has been done the Commission often knock off 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., and the builder has to argue about the particular repair which is being done, while the Commission have the advantage.

Last week I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—I was trying to help the right hon. Gentleman—whether he could not hasten the giving of prior approval for war damage repairs. His reply was that he could do no such thing. He said:

"The War Damage Commission tell me that they are still making about 8,000 payments a week on claims for work already carried out, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 105.]

—therefore, they could not deal with applications for advance approval of work any more quickly than at present. In other words, the War Damage Commission are prepared to inspect the work when it is being carried out but may keep one waiting for as long as two, three or four months before they are prepared to give approval in advance of its being carried out.

The Minister may think that I am trying to waste time but this is a very important point. If the right hon. Gentleman had to carry out £5,000 worth of war damage repairs the first thing to occur to him would be whether he would recover the cost from the War Damage Commission. The second thing to occur to him would be whether it would not be a good thing to get the Commission to give advance approval of the work. That is a delay which to begin with may extend over two to three months. By raising the limit on the amount of work that can be done the Minister is encouraging the carrying out of repairs but when the question is one of making an assessment of what is a reasonable time, he must take into consideration this machinery which the Government themselves have set up and under which only is it possible to do the actual repairs.

Hon. Members, I think, misunderstand the situation a little, and perhaps I might be able to clear up that misunderstanding. The assumption here is that there is a conflict between the local authority that wants the site and the owner who wants a licence to carry out work upon it; that the local authority will, as it were, jump the claim and the individual will not be able to get possession of his site to do the work which he thought he would get a licence to do. The fact is that no such conflict exists.

No one would be more delighted than the local authority if the owner could take possession of the site and carry out the work because that work would require planning permission and would under such conditions make good the site. It would no longer be a site which the local authority would desire to enter to clear up nuisances. The local authority would be delighted because it would be able to say in such a case, "We shall not have to spend the ratepayers' money in putting this site into an agreeable condition."

Therefore, hon. Members have all along this morning, it seems to me, been seeking protection against local authorities as though they are eager and anxious to spend the ratepayers' money on putting these sites in order. I have met representatives of local authorities on this matter, and I can assure hon. Members that although they are anxious to get powers to do what they can to put these sites in good order, they are not anxious to spend money unnecessarily upon them and would be only too pleased if the owners could get possession and do the work.

What we are really dealing with is a set of circumstances in which it is physically impossible for the nation to allow all this work to be carried out now, and accordingly some part of that work will have to be delayed until more necessary work is done. In the meantime, the aim is to try to make these sites as agreeable as possible.

12.45 p.m.

Regarding the matter from that angle there is surely no reason for the apprehensions which are now being expressed and which are embodied in the Amendment. The Amendment means that the Minister must be satisfied that the individual may obtain a licence. A licence may not be possible but the person concerned might say that he was in process of obtaining a licence. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) pointed out that quite often some months elapse—even a much longer time than that—but in each case unpredictable delays may occur in obtaining the licence and in the meantime the site would still be in its derelict condition.

What we have said is that the licence must have been obtained or—and the Minister would do this administratively—if application had been made for the licence by the owner before the local authority had asked the permission of the Minister to enter into possession of the site, the Minister would obviously satisfy himself that the applicant for the licence had a reasonable chance of getting it. In that event he would say to the local authority, "It is not necessary for you to enter into possession in this case because before very long a licence will be granted and the owner himself will be carrying out the work."

Hon. Members must realise that the local authority and the owner must both be clear; there must not be any ambiguity about the situation. The distinction must be kept quite clear because if the rights of both are obscure neither will act and the sites will be left exactly as they are. Under Clause 7 provision is made for the owner to reassert his rights. In other words, the local authority may have been in possession of a site and carried out some works upon it, but the owner may later say, "I have obtained my licence." In that case Clause 7 provides that the owner reenters. So we have in fact tried to cover the point, always on the assumption that no one is anxious to spend public money on these sites if the owners can get the necessary licence to carry out the work.

The Minister has clarified the position to a considerable extent; he has certainly been clearer than the Bill. What some of us had strongly in mind was the situation that not only is there a conflict of interest between Ministries in this matter, as has been explained to the Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cocker mouth (Colonel Dower), but that there is surely another very important conflicting machine, the local authority itself. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that many local authorities are in a position of great difficulty when allotting their priorities and granting licences.

One can well see circumstances arising where, in the case of a concentrated allotment, an owner of one of these bombed sites who is anxious to develop it has made his application. The local authority, when considering these applications, have come to the conclusion—and after all they are the people on the spot who have to make the decisions—that this application must take its place-a long way down the queue. They have many other important tasks on their hands on which they are to spend the ratepayers' money—schools and the like—and they desire to push on with them. In such circumstances they may say, "It is true that this is a blitzed site, it is true that the owner desires to develop it, but in our view that project must await its turn a considerable distance down the queue."

The Minister comforted me a little when he said that the fact that the owner had applied for a licence would be an important factor to be taken into consideration. There is, however, a great difference between that and having obtained a licence. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that the owner might say, "I am in the course of obtaining a licence," which is a very difficult thing for anyone to say.

He would only be able to say that if he had applied.

All I am saying is that there is a difference between an application and being in course of getting a licence. That is an important point which the Minister has now cleared up.

The right hon. Gentleman may be averse to inserting these words into the Bill. I belong to the old school of thought which likes to see firmly written into the Bill what is the intention of this House when the time comes for its interpretation. We have had many similar cases in this Parliament where the Minister has said, "I shall not do this or that. My intention lies in another direction. My remarks are now on record, and those interested can read the Debates which took place in this House." All that is true, but it is not the law of the land. It is very nice for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House and make comforting and agreeable speeches which may allay certain fears, but they are not the law of the land. If only for that reason, although there is very little between us now, I for one should be happier if these words, or something to the same effect, could be written into the Statute.

It seems to me that the Opposition are confusing one or two things. In this Bill we are not concerned with the actual re-building on the site of what existed before. The local authorities are not proposing to do that. They are merely proposing, in certain circumstances, to take over the site and tidy it up. In many cases the doing of these jobs will be very slow, but the hon. and gallant Member is talking about reconstruction on a site, which is a totally different thing. It is perfectly obvious that at such time as an owner is able to get a licence to re-build his war destroyed building on that site, the local authority automatically will stand aside. I think it is important to get that clear.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was in his place when we were discussing the previous Amendment. While this Bill is temporary in intention, I think it likely that a number of these buildings and clearances will have to stand for a considerable time—20 or 30 years—owing to the circumstances in which we live. It would not surprise me if under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act this Bill was extended, and it would therefore not be true to call it temporary.

In the present Bill there is a maximum of ten years.

The discussion has ranged rather widely on what is a very short and simple point, and the Minster must take his share of the blame, because he did introduce into his speech on this Amendment rather wider matters than are covered by this very simple Amendment. This Clause gives the Minister the right to postponement where the owner is able and willing to carry out the work himself, and that is a very right and necessary power. This Amendment is not concerned with the power to postpone at all. It is concerned with a much narrower point, the period of postponement.

All this Amendment seeks to do is to make clear that the period of postponement should not be the period which would be appropriate for the physical carrying out of the work, but that it should be an inclusive period, taking account of the necessary preliminary work of getting the licence as well. That is the only point which arises on this Amendment, and it is a very short point. I am not sure myself whether in the reading of the Clause as it stands the meaning of the Amendment is not already implicit.

indicated assent.

The Minister nods. I am not quite sure, it is difficult to be sure, but I am glad to hear that the intention is that it should be. If there is that intention, then I think that to put it beyond all doubt it would be well to incorporate these words.

It is only necessary to put protective words into a statute if it can be shown that the normal operation of the self-interest of the parties concerned makes it necessary to do so. In this case, the self-interest of both the local authority and the prospective possessor of a licence work together and not against each other. It also would be in the interest of the Minister and of public administration to restrain a local authority from entering into possession of a site, if in fact it was practicable for the work to be carried out by the possessor of a licence. Therefore, in such circumstances all forces move to the common good and there is no need to put protective words into this statute.

Like my hon. and gallant Friend I would rather see the words in the statute. We have heard the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Bill still lacks words which would make those good intentions statutory. I would like to say a word in connection with what the right hon. Gentleman has said on one point. He has laid it down that the self-interest of both parties is one and the same. I would agree that in the great majority of cases that is true, but there is one case where it is not true. That is in connection with the provision for the owner being able to regain possession during the current five or ten years, to set about building. It may well be that the local authority might have a temporary building on that particular site which it wanted to retain for one of its statutory purposes, which it is empowerd to do, and therefore the interests would not be one and the same.

The right hon. Gentleman has cleared the ground very considerably. He has told us plainly what are his intentions, and if he will not put in the words which we think ought and should be put in, then I would say to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that perhaps he might be prepared, having made the point, to leave the matter.

Is the Minister saying that he is satisfied that the owner is able to carry out repairs providing he has applied for a licence?

This is a very simple point indeed. The local authority has applied to the Minister for possession of a site. The Minister informs the owner of the site. The owner may say, "I am willing to develop this site," and we know that most of them are. The question is, is the owner able to obtain a licence? If the owner has started the operation of obtaining a licence, if in fact he has applied for it, then the Minister in those circumstances would satisfy himself about the fate of that application before he would give the local authority power to possess the site. It is not sufficient for the owner to say, "I am ready," because so very many of them are ready. In this case many are called but few are chosen.

That is a compliment to the site owner.

It may be a compliment to the site owner to get his property back, but here, as I have said before, there is no conflict between the interests of the local authority and the potential owner of the licence.

I am sorry that the Committee has been kept so long on this point. I think the Minister was perfectly fair when he nodded to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). I believe it can be said that the Bill as it is worded does in fact cover—in the mind of the Minister—a reasonable period for the issue of a licence. If, therefore, the Minister agrees, I think it is a pity that he is not prepared to make it more clear. I do not think that it is likely to cause any extra delay. If he will allow time for the issue of a licence and also allow time for the construction and completion of this particular work, why not make that clearer by accepting my Amendment?

Why bother, if it is not necessary?

Amendment negatived.

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

I do not propose to detain the Committee for very long though, of course, it is not unusual for hon. Members to address the Committee on this Question. The only reason why I intend to do so now is that I wish to make a brief reference to certain observations made by the Minister earlier. This is a Clause which deals with the compulsory power of possession. It is a procedure Clause. The Minister said that the attitude towards this Clause of hon. Members on this side in general and myself in particular betokened a lack of sympathy with the principles of the Bill. That is not so. The question of the principles of the Bill was rightly defined in the Second Reading speeches and I stand by what I said then in regard to sympathy with the objects of the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman really must not think that hon. Members must repeat everything in Committee that they said on Second Reading or that, in default of such repetition, they may be accused of not having any interest in the principles of the Bill. It is wrong to say that. A considerable portion of my speech on Second Reading was devoted to questions of amenity. I regret the Minister's suggestion that I should be out of sympathy with the local authority point of view. That is far from being the case. I am in good relations with local authorities both in my constituency and elsewhere. I happen to be a vice-president of the Urban District Councils Association, and it is wrong and gratuitous of the Minister to make that suggestion.

Finally, Major Milner, I am sure that I shall have your approval of my next observation. It is clear that hon. Members would be outside the Rules of Order if they were to repeat ad nauseam points of principle suitable to a Second Reading Debate every time an Amendment on some technical point was discussed. Therefore, it is wrong and improper for the Minister to use such an occasion to try to impute to this side of the Committee an absence of interest in the main point of the Bill. I sincerely hope that he will not see fit to make such observations again.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from "for," to "or," in line 31, and to insert:

"any temporary purpose which will be beneficial to the amenities of the neighbourhood."

This Amendment is designed to ensure that the amenities in a neighbourhood are properly preserved. All of us realise that local authorities, like individuals, are not above criticism on this question. Local authorities have been known to be guilty of reducing amenities in certain cases instead of improving them. This Amendment would show local authorities that they must not run into the danger from the point of view of expediency of producing something rather worse than what already exists when they take over a site. It is designed to prevent local authorities from removing certain detrimental aspects and replacing them with something rather worse. It would prevent them from jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

It is clear that owing to the temporary nature of the Bill, which has been stressed continuously by the Minister, there may be erected on these sites temporary buildings which after a short time may prove to be a nuisance detrimental to the people who live in the area. I do not say that coffee stalls, sandwich stalls or ice cream kiosks are necessarily in themselves detrimental, but there are occasions when such temporary buildings, which used to supply what may at one time have been a steady demand, may prove uncongenial to the people who live near the blitzed sites.

I suggest that local authorities should be kept on their toes. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be laid down clearly that when they take over a site which they consider to be detrimental to the amenities of a neighbourhood, they will be told by this Bill that in doing so they must ensure that they use it temporarily, as is laid down, to improve its amenity value. I think that the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea behind this Amendment.

The view that stands behind the Bill is that the local authority is a better guardian of the amenities of a district than is the owner of the property concerned. Otherwise, there would be no need for the Bill. Therefore, the judge of this matter must be the local authority and the Minister. Even hon. Members opposite have considered that the public authority is a better guardian of the public welfare than any private interests. Therefore, the body to decide whether what they have done is better than what would have been done by private interests, is the local authority.

If, however, the hon. Member wishes to import these words into the Bill so that the local authority can do something rather more than it has a statutory right to do, I would ask him to remember what that involves. Would he consider that under the words proposed the local authority would have the right to put up shops?

No. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under this Bill it would not be for a local authority to put up permanent buildings.

I did not say permanent buildings.

Temporary shops are not provided for under the Bill.

They would be under the terms of this Amendment. The word "amenities" would cover that. The Amendment would enable a local authority to put up shops because the word "amenities" could be held to cover a variety of subjects, as was pointed out during the Second Reading. The Amendment would widen the powers of local authorities, and we do not want to do that. Also, it would be held that perhaps an amenity would be a positive and not a negative thing. In other words, if a local authority cleared a site and left the matter at that, it might be satisfied, but it could not be said that a cleared site was in itself an amenity. In that case in every instance the local authority would have to do something about the site in addition to clearing it. We want the local authority to be free. We want it either to clear the site in such circumstances and to leave it alone, or in other cases to clear the site and do something about it, such as laying it out as a garden or a playing field or something of that sort. These words would be more constructive but more expensive than the words in the Bill.

The difficulty is a simple one. It may well be, as the Minister said, that the precise words of this Amendment cannot resolve it. I rather sympathise with what he said about the use of the word "amenities." I think that I drew attention during the Second Reading to the very little interpretation which exists as to the precise meaning in law of the word "amenities." The difficulty as I see it, has nothing to do with the will of local authorities to do well by the amenities. It is simply related to the comparatively short term of their lease.

The trouble is that the word "work" can embrace a very wide range of activities. Every hon. Member would be in agreement that it is a good thing that they should normally do upon those sites that part of the work which is defined in the interpretation Clause as "the laying out and cultivation of gardens." That is obviously a good thing and beneficial to the amenities of the sites, but, when it comes to the erection of buildings, we are bound to ask what kind of buildings local authorities are going to erect under these powers. The object of the Amendment is to try to ensure that such buildings as are erected shall be only the types of buildings which will add to and not detract from the amenities.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about erecting shops. I do not know that there would be any objection in principle—I am not talking about the law—if such a proposal was for the good of the community, but it would be a shop which would come down after five or 10 years, and the local authority would have no benefit or goodwill or the right of a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act, because that case is excluded from the Statute.

What about prolonging the Act?

We are bound sometimes to attach weight to what the right hon. Gentleman says, though we do not always do so. That being so, any shop erected under these provisions would be a temporary shack or structure, and the experience of hon. Members is that these buildings, so far from adding to the amenities, normally detract from them. That is the difficulty which we have in mind, and the Minister has not resolved that difficulty by what he said. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the difficulties of our Amendment, but did not meet the difficulties of his own case, and if he could be a little more helpful we would be obliged to him.

I will help the hon. Gentleman at once. He has informed us, in an unnecessary passage earlier on, that he is a vice-president of the Urban District Councils' Association. Why does he not display more confidence in the local authorities? Why on earth does he assume that the local authorities are going to put up unseemly structures? That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman cannot lay down any better definition of amenities than a local authority itself would be able to apply to itself in a particular case. We cannot make generalisations about amenities, and, in fact, the hon. Gentleman said so and reminded us of it on Second Reading. Therefore, what is an amenity must be left to the local authority in any particular set of circumstances.

If it is not amenity, and if the local authority has in fact done something on the site more disfiguring than the site itself was before the local authority entered upon it, the local citizens can be relied upon to bring the local authority to book. There is nothing at all here that we can do other than waste the time of the Committee. If the term "amenity" is brought in, it might mean an extension of the powers of local authorities being put upon the Statute Book, and hon. Members would not want us to do that here.

I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying that he thought more power should be given to the local authorities, because I entirely agree with him, but he was a little naughty earlier when he replied to my hon. Friend who sits behind me. I do not know whether it is that the lunch hour is drawing near or what it is, but to make the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman did was not only ungracious but unfair. It is perfectly obvious that the words in the Amendment to which his attention has been drawn particularly are, "will be beneficial to the amenities."

Who is to decide that?

The local authority will decide it, and we do not desire to take that power away from them. If the Minister will read the Amendment, he will see that it allows them to put down any works which they are entitled to do in accordance with their statutory functions. There is nothing here to say that it has to be something which will improve the amenities; of course, not.

If he will allow me, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong here, and, if he persists, I shall have to accept these words in another place, but he will be very sorry. What we are afraid of is that, if these words are imported into the Bill, it will not be possible in some circumstances for local authorities to clear a site and leave it, because it may be that their interpretation of it would be that they had to do something more than that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that in some instances it would be sufficient to clear a site and leave it as an open space, and do nothing more positive about it. In another case, if the local authority has the power to do anything which adds to the amenities of the area, that would add to their existing statutory functions, and we do not want that in a small Bill of this sort, though, if insisted upon, we are prepared to consider it.

We are trying to make certain that nothing is erected which takes away from the amenities which now exist, and when I said on Second Reading that I hoped this would not mean a whole lot of unsightly temporary erections, the House generally was with me. I hope the Minister will think over the matter once again in order to see if he can strengthen the existing provisions of the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after "1933," to insert:

"and Part V of the London Government Act, 1939."

This Amendment merely repairs an omission in the drafting of the Bill. Part V of the London Government Act, of 1939, corresponds in London to Part VII of the Local Government Act, 1933, in the provinces. The provisions of the latter Act relating to appropriations and disposal of land by local authorities have been excluded as not being appropriate here.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "twenty-four hours," and to insert "seven days."

We are not quarrelling with the general principle that a local authority should carry out work that would put a site into such a condition as will render it no longer detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, but we say that this suggestion of merely giving a notification of 24 hours before power of entry is granted, is one which should not be accepted by this Committee. We have, therefore, substituted what we think is the more reasonable period of a week's notice to be given to the owner of such a site before entry is made upon it.

It used to be a fashionable dictum to say that an Englishman's home is his castle. That is somewhat out of date, it seems; but I do suggest to the Minister that to say that a local authority shall be allowed as a matter of right to enter upon somebody's property within 24 hours, when, in fact, the owner of that property may, in all probability, not have received the communication, is an unreasonable suggestion.

We are not dealing with a rush job. These sites have been in existence since the war. They are war damaged sites. We have waited four and a half and five and six years in some cases for this work to be done. Therefore, suddenly to produce in an Act of Parliament, presumably only on the grounds of immediate urgency, the right to enter on to property after only 24 hours' notification is surely an unreasonable proposition.

I think we in this Committee should, as long as we are not damaging in any way the rights and the needs of the community, try to preserve, where we can, the rights of the individual. Here we are suggesting that after 24 hours the local authority should be empowered to enter upon a site, when we know perfectly well that if we pass this Clause as it stands now it will be perfectly in order for the local authority to send a letter to the owner of the site by a Saturday afternoon post knowing full well that that particular notification will not arrive until the Monday morning; and as the Clause now stands the local authority will have every right to enter upon the site and to start the work before the owner has had any chance at all of receiving the notification.

I feel that when the public do not get all that satisfaction when, as individuals, they deal with Government Departments, then we ourselves, when laying down legislation, should not impose really impossible conditions upon individuals. We as Members of Parliament are in a sense fortunate, for we do get quicker replies, when we write to the Minister or to his Parliamentary Secretary, than probably other individual citizens do who may make inquiries of the Ministry of Health. Even so, we do not expect lightning answers. We say we do not get them, perhaps; but we do get a better service; and we accept the fact that there may be certain delay before proper answers can be delivered to our inquiries. We know there is no need for great urgency. There is not that need, and so I hope that the Minister will be reasonable, since this Amendment is a reasonable one, and will substitute a week's notice for notice of 24 hours.

It is very difficult to deal with some of the Amendments which have been moved today, and which, as I have said, clearly would wreck the whole purpose of the Bill—and this Amendment in particular—with any patience whatsoever.

Oh!

Let the hon. and gallant Member think for a minute what is the purpose of this. The purpose of Clause 9 is to enable a local authority to enter upon a bombed site which the owner has, neglected, which is filthy, and which is a nuisance to the neighbourhood. The purpose is to enable the local authority to enter upon such a site and tidy it up and; leave it—in other words, to do what the owner ought to do and fails to do. And because he does not do it the whole neighbourhood is polluted. Subsection (3) of the Clause makes the local authority, having done the work and cleared off, liable to compensate the negligent owner for any disturbance. Is it seriously suggested in such circumstances as that that any great disservice is done to the owner?

I have never heard, in the whole of my experience, of such tenderness as is being shown today for the owners of these bombed sites. The fact is we are getting complaints all over the place, from all around. Now the hon. Member seriously suggests, as a member of the London County Council, that though there is an abomination on the site, a notice shall be put up to tell the owner to do the work in seven days' time.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if a site has become a public nuisance or a danger to health, the county council or any local authority already has power to deal with it.

There is far more than that involved here. People tip all sorts of stuff on to the sites whenever they like, and it is left there, and it is now seriously suggested that we should have the pompous position that this eyesore should be there for seven days during which notice is served on the owner by the local authority, saying, "If the work is not done we propose to do it." I have never heard in all my life in Parliament of such a fragile vehicle carrying such a load of nonsense.

The right hon. Gentleman blows hot, and then he blows cold. He will probably blow up one day—quite rightly, perhaps; and at not so distant a date, perhaps. The right hon. Gentleman has today paid far more glowing tributes to owners than we have on this side of the Committee. He has said, "Of course, if an owner is liable he will apply for a licence." I should not like to say so. There are some very bad owners who neglect applying for licences.

There is no licences involved here.

I said that the right hon. Gentleman has given an indication that owners have a very strong sense of their responsibilities, and yet at another time he has said that they are the worst people who ever lived, and that the sooner they are all thrown down the drain the better.

Hear, hear.

Certain hon. Members on that side are far more honest than the right hon. Gentleman, because they are consistent, at any rate. Consistency is a thing that we on this side always welcome. I should like to know what exactly the right hon. Gentleman's argument is. I should like to know exactly where I stand. From what he says, one minute I think I am a good boy and the next minute I think I am a bad boy. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? If these sites are in this frightful state and all the rest of it, why has not some action already been taken? Sites do not get into an appalling state in one second. This means that the local authorities themselves have been inactive in the matter.

I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can enter into a Second Reading speech on this matter. It is a small point, of whether seven days' notice shall be substituted for 24 hours' notice.

That is the point I am trying to make. I will explain it carefully, and I am sure, Major Milner, you Will agree I am in Order. What I am saying is that the local authorities have neglected their duty if they have allowed these sites to remain so long, and have then suddenly wakened up to say, "We have to start this work in 24 hours and we shall give 24 hours' notice and no more." That is the point I am making.

Clearly, that is a false point. If the offence was of a kind that the local authority had power at once to remedy, it would already have done so. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the powers of the local authorities.

I fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman. This notice of 24 hours is now being provided for in Measure after Measure. It appeared in the Coast Protection Bill the other day. Now it is being put in here. In every new Measure now there is this 24 hours' notice. I do honestly think, with all respect, that what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said lay behind this is indeed the case—that what the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do is to destroy individual liberty and freedom.

I did not anticipate that I would have to take part in the Debate on this Amendment, but in view of the manner in which the Minister has received it, and the way in which he has worked himself up into what appears to be almost a form of rage about nothing in particular, I must say I think he is being too stupid for words.

The hon. and gallant Member should have a little more—

I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman this time. He has been interrupting throughout the whole of these proceedings, and has indeed been telling my hon. and gallant Friend how he should make his speech instead of letting him make it in his own way. The right hon. Gentleman can just remain on the bench this time while I finish what I have to say to him.

The Minister's indignation was quite ridiculous. What we desire is that reasonable notice shall be given. Now it is no good the right hon. Gentleman starting off to hunt owners for not having done their duty. He knows that in many cases that is quite untrue, and quite untenable. After all, it is not up to the owner of a property to be on guard day and night.

Why not?

Why so?

Why not?

I want to know first, why so?

It is his property.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman just saying. "Why not?"

I have said, because it is his property.

Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain a guard over his property?

There is somebody there all the time.

Well, we shall leave it at that. There is no need whatsoever for the owner of property to have a constant guard on his property. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the whole neighbourhood being polluted, and nonsense of that kind.

Hear, hear.

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to his own property. That would be sufficient to pollute any neighbourhood. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman asked for it: he can take it. The right hon. Gentleman is just talking ridiculous nonsense. If any property is a public nuisance the local authority has already a statutory duty to see that it is put right. The right hon. Gentleman is just behaving very stupidly on this Amendment. He talks about it being "a fragile vehicle carrying such a load of nonsense." How very stupid, childish and ridiculous. The fact of the matter is, the right hon. Gentleman needs his lunch and he ought to go and get it.

It has become customary in Acts passed by this Government always to introduce the very shortest notice. It really is not necessary; and in this case in particular it is not necessary. I know that in some cases in which there is a 24-hour limit on giving statutory notice I get notices weeks ahead. There is no need for this provision for only 24 hours notice. Let us make it something reasonable. Seven days is perfectly reasonable in this case. There is nothing for the right hon. Gentleman to work himself up about on this. Local authorities do not really want to appear within 24 hours to do something and they will not do so. They can quite easily give seven days' notice; the work will proceed with agreement on every side; we shall get co-operation, and the thing will be done very well. I hope my hon. Friend will stand by this Amendment and take it to a Division unless the Minister gives way.

I also hope that the population of London will have followed this Debate, and have realised how much more tender the Opposition is for the property rights—

For reasonableness.

—of the owners of blitzed sites than they are for the welfare and health of the London people.

I think it would be very unreasonable of anybody to suggest that I should withdraw this Amendment, in view of the extraordinary behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose he is peevish because he is peckish. For some unknown reason, he has gone off the handle. He knows perfectly well that no local authority would demand that they should be able to give 24 hours' notice rather than a week's notice to the owner of a blitzed site. He knows that is not a demand which would be made to him by any local authority, because it is not needed. Local authorities already have a great deal on their hands, and they will not need to do everything required on these sites within 24 hours of giving notice. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has behaved in this most unreasonable and foolish manner, and I hope my hon. Friends will join with me in support of this Amendment when we divide.

Before the Committee takes a decision on this Amendment, I should like to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to this simple Amendment in language quite unsuited to the occasion, or the purpose or spirit of the Amendment. One always knows when the right hon. Gentleman has a bad case, because when he is at his most rhetorical, and when his synthetic indignation is at his warmest, his case is at its worst; and it is notorious that his synthetic indignation is often so very warm because his case is often so very bad. This is just another illustration of it.

The Minister talked about abominations existing on these sites. There is nothing in this Bill about abominations. This is the fifth year of this Parliament, and the fifth year of the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office. If these abominations demand instantaneous treatment, within 24 hours of notice being given, what has been happening during these five years? Why do we only hear about it for the first time in the fifth year of his tenure of office? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Longden) has a point to put perhaps he will stand up and put it. As he does not stand up I assume he has no point to put, so perhaps he will observe the Rules of the House and when seated remain silent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Nobody in this Committee can lightly accuse me of any lack of courtesy in

I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, at the end, to add:

"(4) Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section any land is fenced by the local authority, half the cost of such fencing may be recovered by the local authority from the owner of the land."

I hope that this Amendment will not engender the same amount of heat as was engendered on the previous Amendment. The point of it is this. I am advised, by those who are competent to express an opinion, that unless the site receiving attention under this Clause is immediately enclosed by fencing, the work done and the money spent on the site will be wasted. The most satisfactory form of fencing is, I understand, a chain-link fence with concrete posts, and the cost of such fencing is in the neighbourhood of £1 per yard. That is not a job which can be done by voluntary labour.

We have some 500 damaged sites in the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth, and the cost of fencing alone will be anything up to £15,000. That may not seem a very large figure in relation to the sums with which the Parliamentary Secretary has to deal, but it is nevertheless a large sum to us. The cost will be even greater if the amount is covered by loans, however low the interest rate and however short the period for repayment may be.

1.45 p.m.

I submit it is right and proper that we should make some distinction between the two categories of sites dealt with in the Bill. The first category is the land that is completely taken over by the local authority, and the second category is the land or site which is entered upon for the purpose of making improvements, from which the owner may reap some benefit, and in respect of which the owner continues to use and possess the site in question. There is no valid reason why the owner of the latter category of site, with which this Clause is concerned, should not make some contribution to the benefits that will accrue to him personally. That is why this Amendment suggests that the owner should bear half the cost of fencing the site. He is not expected to pay for the cost of removal of debris or the clearance of the site, and it is surely not unreasonable to expect him to pay half of the cost of fencing.

The proposal will relieve ratepayers, most of whom are not members of the Tory-sponsored ratepayers' associations which exist up and down the country. Furthermore, if the owner wants to do the job himself he can get on with it without waiting for action on the part of the local authority and with or without such contribution as may be obtainable from the War Damage Commission. As a matter of fact, public-spirited owners have already fenced in their sites. The Clause, which my Amendment seeks to improve, implies that the public-spirited owner who has already erected and paid for the cost of fencing, is to be the subject of discrimination compared with the owner whose land will be fenced in under the Clause at the ratepayers' expense. I know that the usual widow and orphan argument may be adduced; I mean the hypothetical widows who are marched on parade as soon as it is proposed to nationalise anything or to interfere with any proprietorial rights.

This is a problem which can be simply surmounted by carrying out the work and registering the appropriate charge for it. That is done when the local authority carries out repairs under the Public Health Act which the owner has refused to carry out, after the matter has been brought to his notice and the requisite orders have been obtained. We do not ask that the Exchequer or public funds should be subjected to increased burdens. The intention of the Amendment and of those who support me is to relieve the burden on ratepayers and taxpayers and to require from the owner a reasonable contribution towards the cost of fencing his site.

I support on behalf of the borough which I represent, the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). We have found from experience that it becomes vitally necessary to fence these sites. It is not enough just to clear away the rubble and sow grass seed in the top soil. One must have fencing. In our borough, out of 282 bomb damage sites, the vast majority are owned privately. We have gone into the matter very carefully and we have found that the owners usually do not live in the borough. They have left the property in the hands of agents whose job in the past it has been to collect the rents. Bermondsey is one of the boroughs in which large parts have for many years been eyesores, to a large extent because of neglect of property in the hands of private owners.

During the war, Hitler did us some benefit by wiping out many of our black spots. Today, because of the passing of a Bill to try to improve the amenities, we are, with voluntary helpers, trying to overcome our problems. We feel that it is not right, where private owners of property have not made the slightest attempt to improve it at all, that the local authorities should take on the whole burden. In many cases it is difficult to trace the owners of some of the sites. We think it only justice to the ordinary ratepayers that they should not be asked to shoulder the whole burden.

I have of course a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friends. It may be true to say in some cases that some owners have carried out this work themselves and it seems unreasonable that other owners should not follow suit but should have to be required to do the same thing. We have given the matter very careful consideration. We feel, in spite of that, that it would be inequitable to give power to require this of every owner. I think hon. Members are aware that the Clause refers in the main to small sites. It might therefore be a great hardship to a small owner to meet half of what, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, may be a fairly considerable cost.

We apppreciate the points that have been raised as to the deterrent that the cost of fencing will be upon local authorities. I rather think that that was the consideration at the back of the minds of my hon. Friends when they put down the Amendment. As we indicated on Second Reading, the charge need not fall upon the local authorities all in one year. Suggestions have also been made that there might be more consideration given to the penalties imposed upon those who dump or seek to dump rubbish upon these sites. It may be better to deal with the problem along those lines rather than to accept the Amendment.

I should like to refer to the point which has arisen as to cost. It will require many thousands of pounds to fence sites with chain link fencing. No one in his senses would erect chain link fencing around sites likely to be in the occupation of the local authority from only one year to a maximum of 10 years. That type of fencing is only used where it is necessary to have a boundary for many years, because the lifetime of the fencing is between 50 and 60 years. Chain link fencing is unnecessary for the purpose envisaged in the Bill. Alternatives are available at a very much lower cost.

In most cases there is no fencing at all around these sites. The War Damage Commission would have some financial responsibility for its erection in cases where there is no fencing and the site is the result of enemy action. The War Damage Commission should bear the cost of the erection of suitable fencing. In all the circumstances, in view of the fact that the occupation of these sites cannot be for more than 10 years while most of them will be possessed for a very much shorter period of time, I think the Minister is right in saying that the Committee should not accept the Amendment.

I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that this is only a small matter. In a city like Birmingham it is a very large and important matter. I was recently in communication with the City Surveyor of the City of Birmingham about these problems. I was dealing with the site formed by the gardens of a number of houses. Through bombing the gardens had gone entirely out of use, and the site had been quite wrongfully used for other purposes. The tenants themselves could not develop the gardens because there was no fencing round the site. One tenant wrote to me and said how dangerous it was because huge holes were being dug and children were lighting fires on the site and things like that were going on.

I wrote to the City Surveyor who replied that his department, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health, had cleared up much of the bomb damaged property in the City and the cost of so doing was reimbursed to the City by the Treasury through the Ministry of Health. However, the Ministry of Health would not permit fencing unless it was on the grounds of public safety, and for that reason most of the cleared sites throughout the city were left unprotected. In my judgment the landlord of the site to which I have referred ought to have erected fencing. There was no reason why he should not do so.

This is the first Amendment today upon which hon. Members opposite, who have been so careful to protect the interest of property owners, have not said one word.

Wait a moment.

If it had been a question of the protection of private property, they would all have been jumping up at once to try to get in.

This is a matter to which the Minister ought to give more consideration. While we have done very much in Birmingham, many of these sites are in the centre of the city, which was an unhealthy area during the bombing, and the people have, therefore, suffered considerably. I do not see why we should be so tender to landlords who have lost all sense of responsibility towards their property. The Minister should again consider whether some powers should be conferred to enable local authorities to recover part of the cost. I do not see why this should be as expensive as was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton said that there could be cheaper fencing.

I thought it a pity to intervene earlier in the domestic disputation opposite in which hon. Members are torn between their desire to injure property owners on the one hand, and their desire to assist local authorities on the other. I have broad sympathy with the view put by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). The Committee should be grateful to him for raising a point of so much importance. His arguments were mostly sound. On the other hand, some of his detailed suggestions could not be supported whatever one's political views happened to be. For instance, as there is to be a 15 per cent. charge for the erection of fencing, it seems to me that the owner should have some say in what sort of fence is to be erected.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be so wedded—I do not know whether one can be wedded to a chain fence; it sounds a mixed metaphor—he seemed to indicate that the only fence suitable for the purpose would be a chain fence. He was completely answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), although I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism, as I indicated earlier on another Amendment, that this is a temporary affair. I believe that this five and 10 year time limit will be re-enacted in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill under a future Government.

I feel, with the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), that the Minister brushed this aside a little easily. He seemed anxious to smooth the Committee after our experience with his right hon. Friend a little earlier. The earthquake having departed, a still, small voice followed. A good thing too; it was soothing and calming. None the less, I think he might have given more attention to the views of hon. Members who sit behind him.

I want to make a suggestion. I could not vote for the Amendment in its present form for reasons which have been stressed by the Parliamentary 'Secretary and also by the hon. Member for Acton, but this is a matter which should be looked at further before the Bill passes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might find that the skilled and learned Law Officers, whose assistance is always readily forthcoming in these matters, could devise a form of words which would broadly meet the point he has in mind. I do not know whether there will be a Report stage today. There will have to be a Report stage because Government Amendments are on the Paper and the Bill will be amended in Committee. Our position is therefore safeguarded to the extent that there is bound to be a Report stage. Or are the Government anxious to push this Measure through all its stages this afternoon? If they are, we shall not have an opportunity further to consider the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might get unity on both sides of the Committee if he had another look at this difficult problem.

If there could be an Amendment on the Report stage which would give local authorities a little easement—this is a very heavy burden for many of them—which would at the same time allow owners to be consulted about the form of fencing to be erected and which would also, while we are about it, give retrospective relief to the public-spirited owners who have already done the work and paid 100 per cent. of the cost, it would surely commend itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Let us be fair to all. Let sweet unity prevail now that the Minister has gone to lunch. Let the Parliamentary Secretary say that he will examine the matter again, and let the Report stage be taken, say, this day week when the necessary Amendment can be considered.

I should like to put a question to the Minister. I do not feel that the Amendment, as drafted, could be operated. In many cases local authorities would find they were dealing with a man of straw from whom they could not claim and from whom they could get nothing. The Clause provides for certain compensation to owners when the site is handed back. I assume—perhaps the Minister will put me right on this—that in the calculations as to the amount of compensation to which an owner might be entitled, the expenditure incurred by the local authority in making the sites pleasanter or more useful for the people living around them will be taken into account. Surely the question of fencing in order to keep dumpers off those sites and to prevent people from misusing them will be a factor in the cost which the local authority will have to bear in mind when turning these horrible sites into something like decent amenites for the local people. Will the Minster tell me whether these expenses will be taken into account when the time comes to calculate the compensation which the owner can claim?

We have had a useful discussion on this point though the Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt as fully as he might have done with the important issue raised by this Amendment. I suggest that he was rather side-tracking the issue when he said that it was inequitable to expect a small owner to pay. He admitted that there was unfair discrimination between the owner who will be helped under this Clause and those public spirited owners who have already fenced their sites and thus contributed to the amenities of the neighbourhood. His other point, that the expense does not arise in any one year, is no real answer be- cause the cost will be even greater if the money has to be provided by loan. Nor is it an answer to suggest that heavier penalties on those who misuse the sites will be effective. It means additional police observation and prosecutions in the courts.

I willingly concede the argument that chain fencing is not the only or best means of dealing with all the sites, and I am sure that alternative cheap fencing could, with the consent of the owner, be put up where the circumstances warrant it. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) misconceived the position when he talked about a local authority not being in possession of these sites for more than ten years. The sites affected by this Clause are those which do not come into the occupation or ownership of the local authority but remain with the private owner.

I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) that this is a problem which will be with us not merely for two, three, five or 10 years, but that we must be prepared to face the possibility of some of these sites not being fully utilised for a number of years to come. In those circumstances, if my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, I appeal to him to say that, in consultation with such other authorities as he might wish to consult, he will see what can be done to meet this point at a later stage of the Bill. If he would give some such undertaking, the views which have been expressed will be satisfied to that extent.

I appreciate the points raised, but these are all matters which were considered carefully before this stage of the Bill was reached. With regard to compensation, that will largely depend upon the long-term use to be made of the site by the owner. As I say, we have already given sympathetic consideration to this proposal, not necessarily in this form, but we feel that in practice it is not one which we should embark upon. The suggestion I put forward earlier was not lightly made, and was discussed with all the representative bodies.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this aspect of the matter, namely, a contribution on the part of the owners towards the cost of this fencing, was discussed with any of the local authorities or with any association of local authorities?

I did not say that the proposal my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward was discussed with the local authorities, but it has had careful consideration by my right hon. Friend and I am afraid we cannot accept it.

The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that this matter received most careful consideration before we reached this stage of the Bill. I hope it did—but has no impact whatever been made on the hon. Gentleman's mind by the Debate which has taken place today in this sovereign body of the House of Commons? Here we are on the Committee stage, and the most eloquent, moving appeals have been made to the Parliamentary Secretary from hon. Members behind him and by hon. Members opposite. Are they to be told merely that this is a matter which was considered beforehand, that the Minister has gone to lunch, and that the Parliamentary Secretary has received instructions to resist every Amendment which comes up until his return? It is unfortunate if that is so.

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman had come here without his mind entirely closed to what the House of Commons might feel on the matter. The House of Commons still exists. The House of Commons still has its opportunities of putting forward suggestions. I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would say that in the light of the speeches made this morning, particularly those of hon. Members behind him, he would look at this between now and the Report stage. He has considered it already, we know, but will he not reconsider it between now and then?

I intervene again only because I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) ought to assume any unfairness on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment was put down on the Order Paper on Tuesday; there were discussions between those of us who support it and the Parliamentary Secretary, and we know some of the difficulties he has encountered. So we are quite certain that this Amendment was given consideration and I would not like hon. Members opposite to think that it had been completely ignored.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(4) No development charge shall be payable under Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of the laying out of cultivation of gardens on any land subject to a lease or authorisation under this Act in accordance with any such permission to develop land as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section."

May I ask, Mr. Bowles, with a view to expedition whether you would be prepared to take this and the next Amendment together, namely, in line 28, at end, insert:

"(4) For the purposes of Section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, where in the exercise of the powers conferred on a local authority by Section four of this Act any development is carried out by that authority on any land to the possession of which they are entitled by virtue of an authorisation under this Act that development shall be deemed to be authorised by the Minister."

Yes if that is agreeable to hon. Members.

I am much obliged, Mr. Bowles.

The ordinary provisions of the Town and Country Planning law will apply to the operations carried out on, and the uses made of, any war damaged sites possession of which is taken by a local authority under the Bill. Circumstances may arise, therefore, in which a local authority may be required to pay a development charge in respect of the action it takes to clean up or improve a site. The amount of such charges is not likely in any particular case to be great, having regard to the amenity nature of the authority's interest in the site, and in the case where it has taken possession compulsorily, to the insecurity of its tenure.

The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that a local authority will not be required to pay a development charge where it proposes to improve a war damaged site by the laying out and cultivation of gardens. It is considered that it would be inequitable in such a case to levy a charge since the local authority will not benefit financially from the operations it carries out. Further, there is the temporary nature of the occupation. The development charge really was placed on the Statute Book with a view to long-standing occupation and benefit.

With regard to the second Amendment, under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, when a Government Department authorises a local authority to acquire land compulsorily for any purpose, that Department may, at the same time as it grants the authorisation, direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for the development of the land for the purpose of which its acquisition is authorised. The making of such a direction avoids approach by the acquiring authority both to the Department authorising the acquisition and to the local planning authority and the Minister of Town and Country Planning before it can commence the development.

On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Could the hon. Gentleman read a little more slowly? It is difficult to follow what is going on.

It is unusual to have complaints that speeches cannot be heard and I recommend the hon. and gallant Member to take advantage of the National Health Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read a little slower."]

The object of the Amendment is to apply this procedure to cases where, under the Bill, local authorities are authorised by the Minister to take possession of war damaged sites to carry out works of improvement, securing that the sites are not in conditions detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. The Amendment is designed, first, to safeguard a local authority against a development charge and, secondly, to secure that the passage for the local authority in getting on with the work may be much speedier that would otherwise be the case.

The first of the two Amendments would conflict with the general principle regarding arrangements for payment of development charges in connection with local authority development. In point of fact we do not believe that, in actual practice, charges are likely to arise in cases of this sort. We have investigated and had some discussion on this matter and are satisfied that in practice this problem should not arise. Neither are we sure that the provision contained in the second Amendment is necessary, but we are prepared to reexamine the matter to make quite sure of this. If necessary, an Amendment will be put down at a later stage.

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

I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 6, and to insert:

"it is not the intention of those owners to carry out such works."

This is a rather technical Amendment and relates to the question of cost of works and value payments. Under the Bill as it stands the War Damage Commission are to be given power, where it appears to them that the licence and other requirements would be granted for the rebuilding of the area, but that, after consultation with the owners, the work will not be carried out within reasonable time, to convert the cost of works payment into a value payment.

That might on the face of it seem quite reasonable, but I would like to take the Committee back to the War Damage Act, where it will be found that whenever a cost of works payment is converted into a value payment it is done after agreement with, and at the wish of, the sufferer from war damage. But under the Bill, as I read it, and without the Amendment, the War Damage Commission will be able to enforce a conversion for a cost of works payment to a value payment.

It does not require me to remind the Committee that in a conversion of a cost of works payment to a value payment a very considerable loss may be entailed. A cost of works payment means that one is entitled to reinstate property into its condition before it was damaged by enemy action. A value payment, on the other hand, has been fixed at a 1939 value with certain additions, a procedure which the House has approved during the present Parliament.

The first thing I do not like about the provisions in the Bill is that the value payment can be enforced. My second point—the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have both stressed the undesirability of holding up work, but our proposal cities not do that in any way—is purely a question of whether the payment is to be a cost of works or a value payment. It is rather unreasonable that all that the War Damage Commission should have to do is to have a consultation with the owners and come to the conclusion that the work will not be carried out within a reasonable time.

Under the Amendment, the Commission would have to come to the conclusion that it was not the intention of the owners to repair the property; otherwise, where an owner says that he does not intend to repair the property, he gets a value payment. The cost of works basis has been put upon bomb-damaged property on the ground that its owner might one day hope to be able to repair it. Acceptance of the Amendment will ensure that the War Damage Commission must make certain that it is the intention of the owner not to wish to repair his property, and not merely to come to the conclusion that the work will not be able to be done within a reasonable time.

This proposal does not impede or delay the workings of the Bill in any way and does no harm whatever to any of its provisions. We have argued reasonably, and sometimes a little heat has been engendered, but that does no harm. After all, we are opposing forces and the public like us to fight, as long as we fight above the belt. But the Parliamentary Secretary, as far as I know, has not given way on a single Amendment.

That shows how tough he is.

He may be tough, but he is not reasonable.

He has been reasonable.

If he has been told by the Minister, who really is having a very big lunch—he has been away a very long time—to oppose and not to accept any of the Amendments, I hope that he will send one of his friends to ask the Minister whether on this occasion he can show some kind of amenability.

In spite of the very encouraging words of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) I fear that we cannot accept the Amendment, for to do so would be asking the War Damage Commission to carry out a job which I do not think they could be asked to undertake. For example, the Commission would have to be satisfied that the persons interested would never reinstate their property to its former condition. It seems to me quite impossible for them to arrive at that conclusion. Obviously, the circumstances of the people concerned might change in course of time. To make the Clause at all workable the Commission must be allowed to look at the present circumstances and to judge what those concerned intend to do within a period that can reasonably be foreseen. It is for that reason—a reason I hope which will appeal to hon. Members opposite—that we cannot agree to the Amendment. I am sure they would be the first to accept that we cannot ask the War Damage Commission to attempt to act in a way which would be impossible. We cannot ask them to judge when it is quite impossible for them to judge. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.

I confess I cannot understand the reasons for the Parliamentary Secretary resisting this Amendment. He says it would not be possible for the War Damage Commission to ascertain what is asked for—that it is the intention of the owners to carry out the work. I should think it very much easier for the War Damage Commission to ascertain whether it is the intention of the owners to carry out the work than to form an opinion whether the works will be carried out within a reasonable time. The question of the intention of the owners is a question of fact.

I hope the hon. Gentleman has obtained some assistance from the Attorney-General on this point. What is the intention of the owners is an ascertainable fact which can be clearly expressed. Whether the works will, or will not, be carried out within a reasonable time is a much more uncertain matter. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have another try to explain why this Amendment should not be accepted. So far his arguments seem very much to strengthen the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend.

As far as the manner of his reply was concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary was much more disarming than his right hon. Friend and to that extent he has proved himself a much more effective debater, at least in the limited circumstances with which we are dealing today.

This Amendment deals with a simple, but important, point. It is not clear at first flush why the Clause is in the Bill at all and why this special provision for converted value payments in these circumstances falls to be dealt with under the War Damaged Sites Bill at all. Since it is being dealt with it is right that the Committee should see that the Bill provides a reasonable solution to the case with which it deals. Under the Clause as drafted the owners, willynilly, after consultation, though not necessarily after expressing agreement, have to accept converted value payment if the works will not be carried out within a reasonable time.

What was clear on the Second Reading Debate perhaps to all other than to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), although I think he is clear about it now, was that in many cases the time within which such works could be carried out was not within the option of the owners of the property and that there might be all sorts of considerations whereby they would be prevented from giving effect to their intentions. All the Amendment seeks to do is to make the criterion of whether or not the owners shall be forced to accept a converted value payment instead of a cost of works examination the question of their intention. That seems reasonable. Here we are only dealing with questions of war damage compensation and none of the considerations introduced in arguments on previous Amendments is germane to this matter.

So far from being less easy to ascertain than the requirement in the Bill, this is more easy to ascertain. What the Amendment seeks to do is, first, to provide a right and, secondly, to make the provision whereby it seeks to do it more practicable and easier than that at present in the Bill. In those circumstances, it would seem that if, as I hope, the Parliamentary Secretary has been given a discretion in this matter, it is because there is some reason to hope that he would exercise his discretion rather more objectively than his right hon. Friend. I reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) that he should think again on this question.