HC Deb 08 August 1893 vol 15 cc1541-3
MR. BENN (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I beg to ask the First Com- missioner of Works whether the remuneration payable to the Crown Surveyor and Solicitor or other officer covers their advising the Crown with regard to Private Bills alleged to affect the estates under the management of the Office of Woods; whether he is aware that the Office of Woods asserted the right to stop and did delay the Third Reading in this House of the London Improvements Bill of this Session (on the ground that it would authorise the reconstruction of a bridge upon the foreshore of the Thames), unless the London County Council agreed to come under obligation not to execute the work without the consent of that Department; and whether that Department were justified in refusing their consent unless the Council agreed to pay fees amounting to £42, and further agreed that the compensation to be made by the Council as promoters of the undertaking to the Office of Woods in their capacity of landowner should be fixed by special method on a basis more liberal to the landowner than that provided by the Lands Clauses Acts?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Surveyors employed by the Office of Woods are paid by fees when employed. The Solicitor of the Office of Woods is paid by salary, and all Solicitor's work in connection with Private Bills is done by him without further remuneration, though it is usual for the Office to make charges for deeds prepared by him. The London Improvements Bill proposes to empower the London County Council to occupy and use foreshore vested in Her Majesty, and the works to be authorised may prejudicially affect other property vested in Her Majesty, and the Bill is, therefore, one to which the Queen's consent is required. The Queen's consent requires the certificate of a Commissioner of Woods, and such certificate was given in the case of this Bill as soon as the Commissioner of Woods was satisfied that the interests of Her Majesty were properly protected. This protection consisted of an agreement providing for reasonable compensation in the event of the works authorised prejudicially affecting the property referred to, and for the payment of such charges as are usual in such cases, and of the introduction of the usual clause where it is intended to occupy or use property vested in Her Majesty.