I am not concerned with whether in the East or the West they refer to "dead ripe land" or merely to "ripe land." It does not seem to matter very much. The purpose of the Clause is the same: first to exclude land which comes within the category of ripe land or dead ripe land from the right to claim on the global sum under Part V of the Bill; and secondly, to exempt it from liability to pay a development charge under Part VI of the Bill. There is a very definite and narrow definition of ripeness in the Bill which is, broadly speaking, that there must be a building contract in force, or that there must have been an application for permission to build. This Amendment seeks to widen that definition to a small extent, not to a large extent, so as to include land which, on 7th January, 1947, the day upon which the corresponding English Bill was introduced, was … in the coarse of development as a, residential commercial or industrial estate … That is to say, that on 7th January last it was in the course of development; or, alternatively, it would have been in the course of such development were it not for the war. That is all this Amendment seeks to do.

It is perfectly true that in Standing Committee we discussed Claue 77, as it is now numbered, at some length; and it is also true that we hammered out the definition of building land which is ripe or dead ripe; but we did not, I think, apply ourselves specifically to an Amendment in these terms, or have a discussion on land which was actually in the course of development at 7th January last as a residential, commercial or industrial estate. As the Joint Under-Secretary said, any definition gives rise to borderline cases. We all recognise that. And we recognise his difficulty in drawing a line when dealing with something as hard to define as "land ripe for development." But he says, too, that where land is excluded from this definition and from this Clause two things will happen. First, the owner will have a claim on the £300 million. The hon. Member says that we on this side of the House have consistently, during the proceedings of this Bill, tried to narrow the classes of persons eligible for a claim on the £300 million so that those people fortunate enough to participate might have a larger share. I do not think I am misinterpreting him when I say that. What we have said consistently throughout these proceedings is that this £300 million is a quite inadequate sum, and we have never attempted to hide that view. The more people we can leave out the more compensation there will be to share among those who have, as we say, a just claim on the global sum.

Now, at this late stage, we have had what I believe to be the first mention, during the passage of this Bill, of another category of land, which the Joint Under-Secretary referred to as "near ripe land." That may be another Glaswegian expression; land is perhaps either dead ripe or near ripe in Glasgow.