The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman against the proposed Amendment is almost identical with that which he advanced in the Committee when hon. Members on this side of the House originally asked that there should be the kind of safeguard which is provided in the Lords Amendment and which the right hon. Gentleman is now accepting. The argument at that time was forcible, but whatever force there was in it was against the acceptance of the additional Clause which the right hon. Gentleman is now accepting. If it were, in fact, the case, that there was no serious danger of the blight of designation hanging indefinitely over land, there would not be any need, as in various stages of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has said there was, to apply the provision for re-designation or for giving to the owner of land the right to call upon the local authority for compulsory acquisition.

Since the right hon. Gentleman is accepting the proposed new Clause in order to meet the criticism that was made that the blight of designation could be extended over land indefinitely without the owner of the land having any power to call upon the local authority to acquire it compulsorily, and since the right hon. Gentleman now agrees that the Clause is desirable for that purpose, it surely must also be desirable that it should not be pos- sible for the local authority if it wishes to do so to evade the right of the owner to call upon the local authority compulsorily to acquire by just neglecting to do so, and then applying for re-designation afterwards. All that the further Amendment seeks to do is to make fully operative the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman is accepting, and which he regards as necessary for the legitimate defence of the landowner.