COMPULSORY SALE

Grey River Argus, 16 February 1945, Page 6

COMPULSORY SALE

REQUISITIONED LAND British Bill Raises Opposition RUGBY, February 13. Few Parliamentary Bills in recent times have met such a volume of preliminary criticism as the Requistioned Land and War Work Bill, the second reading of which, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved in ths Commons. During the war, the Government acquired very large tracts of land for war purposes. The Defence Acts, which give it these powers, would also render the Government liable to pay compensation, not merely for the land but for land and factory, airfield, ! hospital or whatever was established thereon. The Bill deals with this complicated situation. It contains a number of provisions relating to the period of requisitioning and reinstatement, but the main clause deals with a large mass of cases in which valuable buildings have been erected or ( extensive work done on requistioned lands by expenditure out of the national exchequer. It gives to the Crown' the power of compulsory quisition of such lands, subject to certain safeguards. Sir John Anderson explained that extensive work at nublic expense had been made on requisitioned land or on land remaining under private ownership—factories, airfields, camps, hostels and defence works. He said the expenditure involved in the works within the scope of the Bill was some £700,000,000, of which probably £600,000,000 represented factories. Without an amendment to the existing law, the land, buildings and works would have to be handed to the landowners, together with compensation for damage. He pointed out that the Government would be quite ready to consider 'amendments which would not hamper it in the action it intended to take under the powers the Bill conferred.

Mr. Kej’’ (Labour), said his Party was in accord with the main purposes of the Bill. He thought what was wrong with the Bill was that it seemed to sacrifice public interests in the rights of way and open spaces and proper restoration. Mr. Turton, Conservative, moved the rejection of the Bill. He complained that the Bill put the financial aspect in front of the aspect of the restoration of the land. The land was a permanent asset to the people of England. They would never tolerate that aspect being left derelict as a result of the war. Parliament should lay down that where the war had damaged land or buildings, either the Crown should restore that damage, or, if the owner had restored it, should recoup him for the cost.

Mr. Keeling, Conservative, appealed for the preservation of public commons and open spaces, of which a great number, he said, would have their existence threatened by this Bill.

Other members pleaded for the preservation of the English countryside and old time amenities, and several suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should withdraw the Bill and recast it. The Bill was read a' second lime without a division.