NEW FOREST (SALE OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES) BILL. (Hansard, 28 May 1902)

§ (5.55.) MR. CALDWELL
pointed out that the measure was drawn in an unusual form. The Bill gave extensive powers to appropriate a part of the New Forest for certain purposes. If those powers were given in the form proposed the matter would never come before Parliament again. It was an extraordinary state of things, in a Bill dealing with public land, to empower a Department to give as much or as little as it pleased according to its own judgment. Parliament ought to have control in one of two ways. Either a scheme should be laid before the House, or the matter should be proceeded with by Provisional Order. The latter would be the usual statutory form, and would give an opportunity for the question to be discussed in the House if necessary.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said the Bill was urgently needed to meet the special requirements of a particular locality. They could not so easily get a proper system of sewage unless they could buy for that purpose a small portion of the forest land. He agreed that they ought to regard with extreme jealousy any proposal to sell, or any proposal to allow to pass out of public control, any portion of land like the New Forest, and this Bill had been strictly limited to purposes of urgent public necessity. At Lyndhurst the sewage system was in a very bad 829 condition, and an outbreak last year I brought this matter under the attention of the Local Government Board, and this district was threatened with a worse state of things in the future if something was not done. It was said that, owing to the lie of the land, they could not have a proper system of sewage without using part of the forest land, and if that was proved to be true, he thought they were bound to allow some part of the forest to be taken. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Commons Preservation Society, and one or two other Members had spoken on behalf of that body. He had communicated with this society, and he thought he was stating no more than the fact when he said that the Commons Preservation Society, after investigating the matter, were perfectly willing that the Bill should go through in its present form provided it was not widened or extended. He should object himself to any moving of Amendments in the direction of extending the Bill. He thought this measure should be limited strictly to what was necessary to secure the health of the people living in the district. Therefore the only point was as to whether, in addition to the securities contained in the Bill, there should also be a Provisional Order. He hoped that suggestion would not be pressed. The Bill already provided that an inquiry was to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, and before him anybody might appear to give evidence on the one side or the other; the inspector had to be satisfied that the land was required, that it was suitable both in amount and situation, that the local authority could not acquire land for the purpose outside the forest, and that the land was to be devoted strictly to necessary purposes. Having provided for local inquiries whore all the local interests could be heard, he thought they had amply protected the forest against being filched away. As this course would involve some considerable expense, he deprecated putting upon them the further expense involved in obtaining a Provisional Order, and he did not think it was necessary to do this in order to protect the public interest. It had been his desire throughout to limit this Bill to what was strictly necessary for the health of the localities concerned, and to 830 give up no part of the forest except upon proved necessity, and even then only to give up the smallest portion which would satisfy those needs. The hon. Member opposite had observed that there was no compulsion on the Commissioners to sell, but at the present time they were unable to sell; this Bill was intended to give them the power to sell, but it did not bind them to sell in any ease at all.

§ *(6.5.) MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said that in the main no one could complain of the speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury or as to the way the Bill was drawn. There was one phrase in the Bill which provided that land was only to be taken when immediately required "in the interests of the public health of the locality." He agreed that Lyndhurst was in an unfortunate position right in the heart of the New Forest, and was entitled to reasonable consideration in regard to everything appertaining to public health. He could, however, give the hon. Gentleman cases in which local authorities had interpreted "the interests of public health" very widely indeed, and he would suggest that the Bill should make it clear that the narrowest interpretation was to be given to this phrase. If Lyndhurst wanted a new system of sewage, that was so eminently reasonable that the House of Commons ought not to object to it, but if it was going to link up its sewage system with four or five other districts to establish a combined sewage farm out of forest land because private land was dearer, that would be a totally different matter. He hoped "public health" would not be construed as meaning the provision of such things as watersheds and gasworks. He had known "public health" to be so construed as to include watersheds, joint sewage farms, gasworks, and recreation grounds.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
It is not the local authority which will be the final judge in such a matter, but the Local Government Board has to be satisfied upon this point.

§ * MR. JOHN BURNS
said he was convinced from the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury that he had within his mind some of the fears he had just mentioned. Some local authorities had interpreted 831 public health to mean such things as he had alluded to. He would suggest that Lyndhurst should have every opportunity for getting out of its sanitary and other difficulties, and that no obstacles should be placed in the way of accomplishing this. He agreed that Lyndhurst should be charged a reasonable sum for the land taken from the forest, but Lyndhurst should not be allowed to link up with other districts for the purposes of establishing a joint sewage farm by appropriating land from the forest simply because it was public land and could be secured very cheaply.