It is perfectly true that as the Clause is drafted it is within the discretion of the Minister to hold a public inquiry. There is nothing novel in that. In the 1944 Act the holding of a public inquiry is not obligatory. Even under Section 1 of that Act the Minister is not obliged to afford objectors an opportunity of being heard, still less to hold a public inquiry at which they may make their representations. He is under no obligation, if he is satisfied that he is already sufficiently informed.

None the less, while we cannot accept this Amendment, I can indicate that it is the intention of the Minister that the initial plan, or any amendment of any substance at all, shall always be the subject of a full dress local public inquiry. The Minister has adopted that practice hitherto, for instance in the Plymouth case in which the Court of Appeal upheld his attitude, and he intends to follow it. But, it is of importance, if the position of the Minister as a Minister, rather than as a quasi-judicial officer, is to be preserved, that the Minister's discretion in regard to this matter should be maintained. If he does not hold an inquiry in a particular case where it is appropriate that one should be held, the political sanction is the sanction which ought to be imposed on him, and that sanction is often much more useful than a purely legal one in this type of case. I hope the House will feel content with that sanction, which it has in its own hands. Incidentally, there is a reference in the Amendment to the position of an arbitrator and the question of compensation. That appears inappropriate because the development plan, unlike the scheme under the Act of 1932, does not give rise to compensation.