I had contemplated intervening at this stage before I knew that a point was to be put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I do not think I can undertake to interpret the Amendment on the assumption that it might be adopted and form part of the Bill. That is not a responsibility I can fairly be asked to undertake. What we are to discuss on this Amendment is the vastly important question of commons and open spaces in the ordinary sense of the term—lands dedicated to public use and enjoyment. I think that phrase pretty well covers the purpose which my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment so persuasively has in his mind. He will probably agree with me. It is not a question here of land in private ownership, over which people may be allowed to walk or stray from time to time; it is land dedicated to public use and enjoyment. We have to realise that, as a consequence of the war, there are considerable areas of such land upon which works of various kinds have been constructed. Now we have to determine how far it is reasonable to go in order to secure the restoration of such lands for the purposes for which they were available before the war. That is the question in a nutshell.

I do, indeed, approach this question with a very sympathetic mind. I am bound to say, however, that I think the Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) has moved goes much too far. Its effect would be that however slight the interference with public amenity by any particular war work and however valuable, important and extensive the war work in question might be, it would be essential, so far as the Bill is concerned, that the land should be restored to its previous use. Perhaps the conception underlying the Bill is derived in part from the existing provisions of the law with regard to the acquisition of common land and similar open spaces by local authorities for public purposes. Such acquisition has certainly been hedged around with very important safeguards. I would call the attention of the Committee to the consideration that, in the case of the existing provisions of the law to which I have referred, the authority which is proposing to acquire land starts fresh, with some freedom of choice. There is no commitment of any kind already incurred. Here we are dealing with quite a different case, in which, for the public service during the war, war works have been erected upon common land.

I use the expression "common land" as a convenient term to cover other open spaces. That distinction seems to me to make a very material difference. Nevertheless, the Government from the outset have been concerned to ensure that proper consideration should be given to the preservation of open spaces and of public amenities. I would like, if I would not be out of Order, to indicate very briefly to the Committee the various respects in which the Government have sought to make clear their solicitude about the public interest in those open spaces. In the first place, we have sought to lay down, quite specifically and beyond any possibility of question, that the Commission has a duty to consider the amenity and public aspects of transactions which come under their review. Further than that, we have provided specifically that local authorities, planning authorities and various societies concerned with commons and open spaces and so forth shall have a right of access to the Commission and a right of audience. We have provided that no common land shall be acquired under the Bill for the purpose of doing further work upon it in order to restore it to the public. The provision which originally appeared in Clause 6 (I, a) and which was wide enough to extend to commons and open spaces it is proposed to amend. Further, when we come to deal with works in regard to which the Board of Trade is to have power to give a conclusive—