I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This proposed new Clause deals with the provisions contained in paragraph 7 of the Ninth Schedule which states: Any agreement for restricting the planning, development or use of land made under Section thirty-four of the Act of 1932… shall cease to have effect on the appointed day. Under the Act of 1932, most valuable agreements were made between landlords t, on the one hand and public authorities on the other, to secure amenities for the benefit of the public at large. In Standing Committee we raised the larger question, which I shall raise again if I get the opportunity, of the inadvisability of bringing these agreements to an end. I believe it is a mistake to bring all these agreements suddenly to a conclusion. The Minister says that the planning powers contained in this Bill would enable anything that was done by agreement to be done by this planning scheme. I doubt whether that is so. I am advised by many experts in this matter that some of these agreements made under the Act of 1932 enter into more detail concerning various points in connection with the use of land, which in their cumulative effect are very valuable from the point of view of the public, than is possible in any statutory instrument.

That is the major proposition, and it is far more important than the point raised by this Clause. This is only a secondary offshoot from that general proposition that these agreements should be honoured and not swept aside in this ruthless manner. The point raised by the new Clause is illustrated by the case of an owner, or his predecessor, who has entered into an agreement with a local authority giving access to his land or doing something for the preservation of the countryside, and whose interest in making the agreement was the common interest of all the inhabitants in the locality, that its beauty and character should be preserved. He was acting in a double capacity—first, as the owner of the land with power to enter into a contract, and, secondly, as a citizen of the locality itself, so that the agreement was of benefit to all. In these cases— and I am advised they do exist—there will be no consideration whatever of the position of the owner or his predecessor in relation to these agreements. When these agreements are brought to an end by the operation of the Ninth Schedule on the appointed day, if action contrary to the agreement is taken by the planning authority, as may well happen—there may arise a generation which will take a different view of the joint property of the countryside—a claim for compensation should be considered. As long as the matter is allowed to rest on the agreement, which I submit should not be disturbed, there is no question of any money passing to anybody. If the agreement is broken by statute, and something detrimental to the owner is put in its place by the planning authority, if he or his predecessor in title can show that no remuneration has been received for what he did, a claim for compensation should be considered.