I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon saying so much and, at the same time, so little about the Bill which is under consideration. I think that in the course of his speech, which was interesting in several respects, he mentioned the Bill only twice. This is not, as I see it, the occasion for me to comment upon his observations with regard to the white paper. We have had an undertaking that we shall have an opportunity of debating it. That undertaking stands, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's interesting discourse. I do not propose to refer to that White Paper to any extent, save to point out that he appeared already to be somewhat on the defensive, and that this Bill is not a Bill which deals with the requisitioning of land, so that when he was seeking to justify the requisitioning of land, he was doing something not affected by this Bill.

This is a Bill dealing with the acquisition of land already requisitioned, join with a number of hon. Members who have spoken in saying that it is a most untidy document, difficult of comprehension to anyone who is not a lawyer, and most lawyers would disagree to some extent as to its effect. We had a most specific pledge from the Home Secretary in 1945 that the period within which the powers contained in the 1945 Act could be exercised, in respect of property held by the Service authorities, would not be extended. That has all gone by the board by this Bill. The Financial Secretary, in introducing this Measure, gave three reasons why the period within which this power can be exercised should be so prolonged. None of those was touched upon by the Secretary of State for War. I will not repeat those reasons but they did appear to me to be entirely inadequate for such a great extension in time. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said it was not fair to put all the blame on the Service authorities for the delay that has occurred. I agree. But I do think that a good deal of the blame does attach, and that a great deal speedier action could have been achieved, and can be still, in determining what properties are necessary to be acquired in the exercise of the powers contained in the 1945 Requisitioned Land Act. My hon. and gallant Friend said, and it is quite true, that buildings are affected as well as land. It is not just agricultural land, important though that is. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had experience of the difficulty in getting a decision on this sort of matter.

I wrote a few weeks ago to the Minister of Works to secure, for a constituent of mine, the opportunity of purchasing some Nissen huts which were standing on his land, and have been disused since the end of the war, and which he wished to use for agricultural purposes. After the usual interval of several weeks, I received a letter to say that the Air Ministry had not relinquished those Nissen huts and that my letter had been passed to them. After the lapse, once again, of the usual period of several weeks I received a letter from the Air Ministry to say that they had no further need of the huts, and had passed them back to the Ministry of Works for disposal. The matter is still with the Ministry of Works. I consider that that sort of procedure can be accelerated, and that this procedure to which the Financial Secretary referred of slowing down the proceedings so that a decision shall be arrived at as to compulsory purchase can be put largely in reverse. It is an inadequate reason for the extension of the kind which this Bill purports to give.

With regard to Clause 2, I think the powers contained in that Clause are already covered by Clause 84(c) of the Agricultural Bill. With regard to Section 3, which deals with highways, I regarded the Financial Secretary's explanation of the object of that Clause as singularly ingenuous. He said that by putting in that Clause it would enable members of the public to take advantage of the opportunity of holding public inquiries under Section 15 of the 1945 Act. He rather indicated that really it was for the benefit of people interested in the preservation of footpaths. That is not so at all. It is quite an inaccurate representation of the position. Clause 3 says that where a footpath has been obstructed without the making of an order, then, if an order could have been made for the closing up of that footpath, there will be power under Section 15 of the 1945 Act to close it permanently. I think that puts the position accurately?