- (1) For the purposes of this Act and of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts incorporated with this Act land includes any building or part of a building, any pier, jetty, or other structure on the shore or bed of the sea or any river, and any easement or right over or in relation to land.
- (2) Where consideration has been given or an advance made by the State for the erection, construction, or making of any building, work, or improvement on over or under any land for purposes connected with the present War, or where any money which would otherwise have been payable to the State has with the consent of a Government Department been applied towards the erection, construction, or making of any such building, work, or improvement, the building, work, or improvement shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to have been erected, constructed, or made wholly or partly, as the case may be, at the expense of the State.
- (3) For the purposes of this Act except where the context otherwise requires, the expression "building" includes machinery and plant fixed or attached to the building.
- (4) For the purposes of this Act any person or body of persons acting on behalf of His Majesty shall be deemed to be a Government Department.
- (5) The Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) shall also be deemed to be a Government Department, and any premises of which possession has been taken by that Board in pursuance of the powers conferred on them by any Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Amendment (No. 3) Act, 1915, shall be deemed to be
2396 premises in the possession of an occupying Department for purposes connected with the present War, and the Board shall in relation to any premises acquired by them under those Regulations have the same powers of sale, leasing, and disposition as are exercisable by them under this Act in relation to land acquired by them under this Act.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, in Subsection (3), at the end, to insert the words
"The expression 'common' shall include any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green, and any other land subject to any right of common; the expression 'open space' shall mean any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation; and the expression 'allotment' shall mean any allotment set out for any public purpose under an Inclosure Act or award."
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI think, on the whole, the definition is a good one, but I would like to know something more about the expression "open space." The Amendment says that "the expression 'open space' shall mean any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation." Is that meant to be taken in its widest possible sense? I have been asked to put this question in connection with Wimbledon Common, for instance, which is not a common, but a statutory open space. It is not laid out as a public garden, though it is used for the purpose of public recreation and for other purposes as well. I do not know that it necessarily comes under this definition. If I could get an assurance that this Amendment is intended to apply to all lands which are habitually used for public recreation, even though they may be used, like Wimbledon Common, for other purposes, I should be satisfied. Some doubt has been suggested as to how far this Amendment is meant to go.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I point out that earlier in the evening the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) had an Amendment down to add "or any lands of the New Forest."
§ Dr. ADDISONThat is included in this. The Amendment is so drawn as to include the New Forest.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWhere does the New Forest come in?
§ Sir G. CAVEIt is not within the definition of commons. The definition "any other land subject to any right of common," I think, will cover the New Forest.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONBut a large part of the New Forest is not subject to common right.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe New Forest, in so far as it is subject to any right of common will come within the protection of the Clause. I think it is admitted that parts of the New Forest are not common lands at all. In regard to the other question, I have no doubt that land like Wimbledon Common laid out as a statutory open space would be within this definition. Anything which is by law an open space will come within the definition.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI am not thoroughly satisfied about the New Forest, and I do hope that the matter will be considered further. It does seem rather peculiar that a place like Wimbledon Common should have to come, not under the definition of common, but under this rather loose term "open space," which is taken to mean "any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation." That, of course, would apply to any place which is thrown open to the public and habitually used. Statutory open spaces are not entirely used for public recreation. There are large parts of the New Forest which are not used by the public, and there are bits of Wimbledon Common to which the public have no right of access, and, therefore, are not used habitually for public recreation. I hope that someone will look into this matter before the Report stage.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think it is important that we should reserve the rights of the New Forest. It is a very ancient place which is open to the public, and which has great traditions, and considering the great areas there are in England, Scotland, and Wales, I think there is really no necessity to spoil the sylvan beauties of the New Forest by putting down a factory, no matter the good purpose for which the factory may be required. I am afraid from what my right hon. Friend has said that the New Forest would not be included. There are undoubtedly parts of the New Forest which have not any common rights. Under those circumstances the New Forest would not be included. Is it quite certain that it is included?
§ Dr. ADDISONThe Amendment has been drawn by our draftsman in order that it might include the New Forest, which has been specifically referred to, so far as it is subject to common rights, in various Amendments on the Order Paper. We will consult our advisers again. I feel sure that it is included.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is another question to be deferred!
§ Dr. ADDISONNo.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen is it all right?
§ Dr. ADDISONI will inquire, and if it is not I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI should have thought the New Forest was included, because it is subject to right of common. If Wimbledon Common is to be dealt with, there is no right of common there, because, I think, by Statute safeguarding that place all the common rights were abolished. Therefore, if you are going to deal with Wimbledon Common, you will have to find some other words.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: Insert as a new Sub-section, (4) For the purposes of this Act references to the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, and the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, shall include references to those Acts as applied by the Naval Works Act, 1895.—[Sir G. Cave.]
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
What is the purpose of this Section? On the face of it it seems to be rather absurd to say that any person or body of persons acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government shall be deemed to be a Government Department. This is apparently giving very great powers to all sorts of people who ought not to have them. Personally, I do not want to create any more Government Departments. The number of persons here is undefined, and you might have five or six persons deemed to be a Government Department.
§ Colonel GRETTONIt is a question of interpretation. I understand that it is possible for the Government to agree to leave out Sub-section (5). But if Subsection (4) is left in would it not in effect cover the Control Board, which they have otherwise persuaded the Government to leave out specifically in Sub-section (5)? 2399 It occurs to me that if that is so the concession which you make in Sub-section (5) is of no effect at all. The Control Board perform their duties under Order in Council and are appointed by His Majesty's Order in Council. They will undoubtedly claim, if they have not claimed already, that they are a body coming within the powers which are granted in Subsection (4). My objection is raised on one particular case, but it applies generally. There is nothing to prevent the Privy Council Committee from advising His Majesty to appoint persons here, there, and everywhere to suit their purpose. If the Government find themselves in a difficulty and want to acquire something the Secretary of State can call the Privy Council together to advise His Majesty to appoint persons. We do not know where we are. When the Bill was introduced we understood that the Admiralty, War Office, and Munitions Departments had acquired lands for the prosecution of the War, which would have to be dealt with. Looking more closely into the matter it will be found that these are extraordinarily loose words, which enable an Order in Council to set up a body of persons to acquire anything which a particular Department has not acquired under this Act. Whatever is intended to be stated should be stated more specifically, and these wide, undefined powers should not be loosely granted.
§ Dr. ADDISONI assure the right hon. Baronet that the particular Sub-section was not intended to refer to the Control Board at all. That is dealt with separately in the next Sub-section. At all events I will undertake that this particular Sub-section, whatever fault may be found with it, shall not be capable of being applied to the Control Board, and if it needs alteration we will make alteration so that it shall conform to the pledge now given.
§ Mr. POLLOCKWhat does it apply to?
§ Dr. ADDISONThe reason for putting in this Sub-section was that there is a considerable number of cases in which possession has been taken of land by the competent naval or military authority, which is not a Government Department as referred to under this Bill. It was to cover such cases that these words were introduced. There is no intention whatever of applying them to any of the Departments outside those to which the Bill 2400 relates. Of course it often happens that the competent naval and military authority acts for one of these Departments, it is to cover cases of that kind that this Sub-section was introduced. We have no particular fondness for the precise terms of this Sub-section. All we want is to cover that class of case. If hon. Members think that the words are too wide, then I will undertake to have them examined.
§ Sir F. BANBURYLeave them out.
§ Dr. ADDISONWe have kept our pledges everywhere; we will keep them on this. It is not reasonable to shut out this class of case because in the majority of instances, in the early days of the War, possession was taken of land by the competent naval and military authority, and not by the Department. It would not be reasonable to exclude that class of case from the Bill, and we want to have them specifically included by those; words. If these words go beyond that they can be reconsidered, but as far as we are advised at present they will not apply to Departments outside those who have previously been dealing with the land.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me impatient with him, but I suggest that the reason why these words are left in is a much simpler one, namely, that those who are responsible forgot to put down an Amendment to take them out. Obviously they ought to be taken out. Sub-section (4), if I understand rightly, applies to land or interest which has been acquired, and can only be used under certain Acts for the defence of the realm, and the Solicitor-General has an Amendment on the Paper, that, for the purposes of this Act, it shall include reference to the Naval Works Act, and it never was intended to refer to the Central Control Board under the words of Sub-section (4). What on earth is the good of it? There is no other Department excepting the War Office or the Admiralty who have the right to exercise these powers under the Defence of the Realm Act.
§ Dr. ADDISONThese powers may be exercised by competent naval and military authorities.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThese powers are vested in some Departments which will cease to exist long before this Act will cease. All that you want is that some of 2401 the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act may be carried forward, and you do not need to create this body of persons into a Department or a Government Department. What you should do is to carry forward certain powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and this Sub-section certainly ought to be left out. It is not needed; by the terms in which it is drawn it does not convey a correct impression, and it ought not to be there. These words will not be wanted on Report, and if they are to come out, the sooner they come out the better. If the Government want to put in some other words, then they can bring up proper words, but these words cannot be wanted, and they had better go.
§ Dr. ADDISONWe will give this matter careful attention, and see that the words of this Sub-section do not go beyond what is intended. I am advised that there are numerous cases where land has been taken by competent naval and military authorities, in the exercise of powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and if this Subsection were struck out they would be excluded from the scope of the Bill. We must have words put in to include them, for under the Act they have taken land for the purposes of the Departments.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not in the least object to those cases, but I do say that this particular Sub-section goes very much further than that. It creates a new principle. It says that certain people shall be deemed to be a department. It is quite unnecessary to do what the right hon. Gentleman says, and, therefore, I submit that the least the Government can do is to leave this Sub-section out at present. Earlier in the evening I ventured to suggest that we were leaving a great deal too much to be settled on Report, and that we ought to have dealt with some of these things in the Committee stage. It is quite true that it is difficult sometimes, on the spur of the moment, to draw up an Amendment which really meets the case; still, I feel bound to say that the Government really ought to deal with the Amendments which they say they are going to deal with in Committee and not on Report. In this particular case there can be no object in retaining these words. The Government themselves say that they only require them for a certain purpose. It is quite clear that they do not meet that purpose, or if they do they go far beyond it, and therefore it would really be very much simpler if the Government would leave out 2402 those words and bring up other words, on Report, which will meet the particular case. I think if that were done we should be willing not to oppose the words brought up, if the Government say they are required, but I really do think that we on this side have really done all we can to meet the Government, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman will admit. We have made a request which will in no way injure, but which will conduce to the better conduct of business, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to allow these words to stand out, on the understanding that he will have the right to bring up words to meet the point raised, and we shall not oppose those words.
§ Dr. ADDISONI will do it now. I beg to move, to leave out the words "for the purpose of this Act any person or body of persons acting on behalf of His Majesty," and to insert instead thereof the words "a competent naval or military authority, acting under the Acts relating to the defence of the realm."
The Sub-section would then read, "For the purpose of this Act any competent naval or military authority, acting under the Acts relating to the defence of the realm shall be deemed to be a Government Department."
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to withdraw my Amendment to leave out the Sub-section, and, of course, we will look at the words which the right hon. Gentleman has moved on Report. At present we think they are all right.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Words "a competent naval or military authority acting under the Acts relating to the Defence of the Realm" there inserted.
§ Mr. HARDYI beg to move to leave out Sub-Section (5).
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this, but if it be otherwise I can assure him there is the strongest opposition to this Sub-section. Certainly this particular body, the Central Control Board, should not be made into a Government Department.
§ Question proposed, "That the words of the Sub-section down to the word 'shall,' stand part of the Sub-section."
§ Sir F. BANBURYI hope the Government will acept the Amendment moved 2403 by my right hon. Friend. I submit that Sub-section (5) is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill has nothing whatever to do with the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and a great number of people in the country at the present moment are strongly against the arbitrary proceedings of the Central Control Board. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but they are apparently a body subject to no control, without any consent of any kind, who have never been set up by Parliament, except in the most indirect and remote way under the Defence of the Realm Act; and I submit that if the majority of this House had known that under the Defence of the Realm Act they were giving power to set up a body of this sort, uncontrolled by anyone, going round the country and dealing at their sweet will and pleasure with the property of other people, they never would have given that power under the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore I myself think that this Sub-section ought to certainly be dropped, and I wonder how it ever got into the Bill. If any further powers are to be given to the Central Control Board there should be a special Bill brought forward for that purpose, on which the House would have the opportunity of discussing the proceedings of the Board and of deciding whether or not to give the increased powers. I feel very strongly on this point, and from what has passed I am glad to think that the Government will omit the Sub-section. If they had not done so the Bill would not have had the speedy passage which it has had this afternoon.
Mr. CHANCELLORI think if the right hon. Baronet will read the Report of the Board and will take the trouble to inquire as to what it has done, he will find that the work of the Board is appreciated by a very large number of people, and not the least by those who were supposed to suffer most by it—namely, the workers of the districts in which it has operated. Do I understand that the Government consent to withdraw this Clause?
§ Dr. ADDISONYes.
Mr. CHANCELLORThen what is to become of the property which the Board has already acquired, and if this Sub-section is dropped, how will it be dealt with?
§ Dr. ADDISONVery strong opposition was manifested to this portion of the Bill, mainly on the ground that it was not related to the problem to be dealt with. I think there was a good deal of justice in that contention, and in deference to the strong opposition to this proposal and as it was so contentious, the Government decided to agree to withdraw the Subsection. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor), of course the Central Control Board has certain powers under the Acts under which that body operates. I am not in a position to say what will happen to the property in that case. There is no question that there is some truth in the contention that this Subsection is outside the general scope of the Bill, and on that ground we accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThe right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to amend this Clause, and I fully appreciate the way he has endeavoured to meet us. I really do not know what is the meaning of the phrase "Government Department." It is used in many Clauses. The Bill starts using it in Clause 1, and it is again found in the Clause we are now considering, but so far as I know it is a new phrase and not defined. The Interpretation Act defined the Treasury, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Commissioner of Woods and Forests, the Commissioner of Works, and so on, in appropriate and proper language. When you are giving power it is right to know who is to exercise the power. Since you have omitted Sub-section (4), which used this phrase, I suggest it would be better to throw aside this indefinite term and make use of some other phrase reasonably well known throughout the Bill. I believe that the draftsman used the phrase "Government Department" because he was relying on Sub-section (4), and hoped he had met the difficulty by a sort of definition. I hope that on Report in all the passages where we have got the words "Government Department" we may have Amendments so that we may get some sort of defined and proper phrase which will not give rise to any sort of difficulties which always arise when you use a phrase which is not accurate to express what you mean.
§ Question put, and agreed to.