§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that doubts have been widely expressed as to whether, in Section 11 (5) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, the proviso that the provisions of Part I. of the same Act prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in Subsection (3) of Section 5 thereof should apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land on either side of a road proposed to be constructed by the Board, was intended in fact to refer to such Sub-section, which contains no prohibition and specifies no classes of land, or was intended to refer to Sub-section (2) of the same Section, which does contain a prohibition and does specify certain excepted classes of land, namely, any park, garden, or pleasure ground, land acquired by a corporation or company for the purposes of a railway or other public undertaking, or the site of an ancient monument, he will take steps to remove this doubt before the Road Board seek to administer this part of the above Act?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member will find that the clerical error in Section 11 (5) of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, to which he refers, was corrected by Section (3) of the Act to amend the said Act which recently received the Royal Assent.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTMay I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that copies of the Act, with this clerical error, are still being sold by the Government publishers?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWell, the Act has got to be sold in the form in which it was originally passed. The corrections made will be found in the amending Act.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTWill not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make it 34 clear whom this amended Development Act (Part 2) does affect?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not see how that can be done in any form which gives greater publicity to the matter than the passage of the amending Act. I think the question of the hon. Gentleman will aid in making the matter clearer.