I am not disputing that there is such a thing as "near ripe land." I had the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the English Bill, and I know that this category of "near ripe land" was invented not by the Joint Under-Secretary, but by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Now, I confess that all the way through the latter stages of our proceedings in the Standing Committee which considered the Scottish Bill, I expected that either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Joint Under-Secretary would introduce this new category of land which had been imported by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I stand open to correction, but I think I am right in saying that this is the first time in our proceedings on the Scottish Bill that there has been any mention of "near ripe land." If we are to have this new category of "near ripe land," the owners of which will be able to take a privileged position at the head of the queue of those people lining up for a share in the inadequate global sum, then we ought to have been told about it earlier.

I do not upon that ground alone express my sorrow that the Government should resist this Amendment. It seems to me that when setting out to define a category of land which is called "Land ripe for development"—to use the words in the rubric to the Clause—one must be thorough about it and include all land which is, in fact, ripe. I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary has convinced the House, in advancing his reasons for rejecting the Amendment, that land upon which development actually started on 7th January, 1947, could today be described in any other terms except as land which is ripe for development. Until he has made a case for rejecting the Amendment, we cannot agree to the proposal for rejection.