We are discussing two Amendments which, in many ways, are quite dissimilar although they both have, for their object, an increase in the amount of compensation payable to an owner. In regard to the first, I am in sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. I think it goes too far. I think that to give carte blanche for any consequential loss or damage sustained by him. would be going very far indeed and would open the door to the widest possible interpretation. I am in agreement with the principle that there should be compensation in respect of loss directly incurred, directly flowing from the revocation, and I am prepared to give an undertaking that at a later stage an Amendment will be introduced in some such form as that, broadly carrying out the principle of the first Amendment but not accepting the language. I am afraid that I can give no assurance whatever in regard to the second Amendment. To provide for the payment of interest on compensation would be to introduce a novel but very dangerous principle. Compensation on interest has never been provided in any Act of Parliament. It was not provided in the 1943 Act, or the 1932 Act, and I do not think that it should be provided here. If, however, the compensation is provided in respect of loss incurred, then I think it will cover the point which has been made because, in fact, the loss will be based upon present-day values.