The right hon. Gentleman has made the best of what I think is a bad job. I presume that he is seeking to protect the owner of land, but is he really protecting him by, this provision? Is it of any value to an owner to have five years' grace and to feel at the end of that period that he may once more—in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—have his land blighted for a further period of 12½ years? If that were the intention of the local authority he is no better off in having this five years' grace than if the land were designated afresh immediately. The five years would me merely five years of agony and anxiety, and all the arguments that are put forward indicating the evil of designation would apply almost to the same extent because the owner would merely be waiting five years until his land was designated afresh. Therefore, I submit to the House that even from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman's own argument this Amendment does not meet the case. If he were really logical he ought to say that this land ought never to be designated again. One can understand that, but five years' grace is of no value at all. It is not even better than nothing.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that redesignation can take place merely at the whim of the Minister. He says that he does not know who will be sitting in my place in 12½ years' time, but, of course, he knows who will not be sitting there. It is unlikely to be either the right hon. Gentleman or myself. It is quite true that we do not know, but is redesignation really going to depend upon the kind of Minister? I would remind the House that in order to redesignate this land the local authority would have to make a fresh plan, they would have once more to hold a public inquiry, at which the owner would no doubt be represented, they would have to satisfy the Minister that the land was reasonably required to be purchased within 10 years, and any Minister knowing that they had had 12½ years already in which to purchase it but had failed to do so would need a great deal of satisfaction before making the Order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman assumes bad faith on the part both of the local authority and of the Minister, I feel that he can rest assured that nobody would wish to redesignate the land merely for the sake of being awkward. There may, of course, be circumstances in which redesignation is really necessary in spite of the fact that the land has not been acquired within the 12½ years. I can conceive such circumstances although I hope that they will be very rare. The very fact that the land had been designated in the plan once would be an indication that it was neces- sary. It is true that the authority would have been dilatory, or there might have been changes in their priorities or other circumstances which prevents them purchasing the land, but its acquisition might, still be urgently necessary in the public interest. Local authorities ought not to be prevented from acquiring land or held up for five years in such a case, rare as it might be.

I believe that the owner is amply protected by the fact that a local authority wishing to redesignate—which would be a very unpopular course—would have to go through the whole procedure of a new plan, a public inquiry, advertisements and satisfying the Minister. I can imagine no local authority doing such a thing except under dire necessity, but if that dire necessity did arise, they ought not to have to wait five years. In these circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.