HC Deb 21 August 1916 vol 85 cc2325-51

Any land which, or an interest in which, has been acquired under this Act may be used by any Government Department, or, with the consent of such Department, by any person deriving title under such Department, in the manner in which it was used during the War, or in any other manner approved by such Department, notwithstanding that such user could, but for this provision, have been restrained as being in contravention of any covenant or for any other reason, and no person interested in any adjoining or neighbouring land shall be entitled to restrain such user or to recover damages in respect of the depreciation of the land in which he is so interested by reason of such user; but if, apart from this provision, he would have been entitled to recover such damages he shall, if application for the purpose is made within twelve months after the date of the acquisition of the land under this Act or after the commencement of the user causing the depreciation, whichever may be the later, be entitled to such compensation as the Commission may think just:

Provided that—

  1. (a) the Commission in determining the compensation payable to any person interested in any land so depreciated in value shall have regard to the extent to which the value of the land or any adjoining or neighbouring land in which the same person is also interested may have been appreciated by any buildings, works, or improvements con- 2326 structed, erected, or made on any land for purposes connected with the present War wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or with the consent of the occupying Department at the expense of any other person; and
  2. (b) no compensation shall be payable if the land is used by a Government Department for a purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, or if used by a person deriving title under a Government Department for a purpose certified by the Department to be in the interests of national defence; and
  3. (c) where the compensation would be payable by a Government Department, the Department may require the claimant to sell the land or his interest therein at such price as would have been proper if the value of the land had not been so depreciated, such price in default of agreement to be determined by the Commission; and
  4. (d) nothing in this Section shall be construed as depriving any person of any right to recover damages in respect of any injury to property caused by accident due to such user as aforesaid.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London to leave out the whole of the first paragraph of the Clause is equivalent to leaving out the whole of the Clause, and it is not in order.

Mr. BOYTON

I have not had any assurance from the Solicitor-General, but I understood that he was going to withdraw this Clause.

Sir G. CAVE

It is not proposed to withdraw the Clause, but to move certain Amendments to it.

Mr. BOYTON

I beg to move to insert at the beginning of the Clause the words "If the Commission so sanction." Many of us do not feel that the Department should have this privilege, and the first decision should lie with the Commission.

Sir G. CAVE

Under this proposal if the War Office purchased a munitions factory for the very object of making munitions, they cannot do so unless they go to the Commission. That would be the effect of this Amendment, and I do not think my hon. Friend would insist upon that. I think the main objection to this Clause has been that it gives the power of user not only to the Government Department, but to persons to whom they may sell land, in that way setting up a class of persons who would have certain special privileges. Objection has been taken to that, and not unreasonably, and I am going to propose to omit the words to which objection has been taken, so that the Clause will only apply to a Government Department. I hope that will meet the objections which have been raised upon this Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BOYTON

I beg to move to leave out the word "Government" ["may be used by any Government Department"], and to insert instead thereof the word "occupying."

Sir G. CAVE

I understand the object of this Amendment is to secure that the power to use the land should only be given to the purchasing Department and not some other Department of the Government. I agree with that, but we do not need the Amendment, because the word "occupying" has no meaning in this Clause. As my hon. Friend will see, I am going to move to limit the purposes of user to purposes for which the property is used during the War under the Defence Acts or the Military Lands Acts. No Department except those dealing with those Acts could use the land, and I think that will meet my hon. Friend's point.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move to leave out the words "by any person deriving title under such Department, in the manner in which it was used during the War, or in any other manner approved by such Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "for the purpose for which it was used during the War or for any other purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903." I think that entirely meets the case of any person deriving title under the Department.

Sir F. BANBURY

Will the Solicitor-General kindly explain what the powers are which are being sought under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, and the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903? It would take a long time for me to look up all those Acts. This is legislation by reference in a very great degree, and I should like to know exactly to what the Committee is committing itself. It may be that we are only committing ourselves to a proper course, but I think we ought to be told exactly what the powers are under these provisions.

Sir G. CAVE

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's request, I may say that, under the Defence Acts, land may be used for defence purposes only, and under the Military Lands Acts land may be used for military purposes, including rifle or artillery practice, buildings, the enlargement of barracks, the erection of huts and batteries, premises for the storing of arms, military drill, and any other purposes connected with military matters. To put it quite generally, these powers are for defence or military purposes.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I think the Committee should understand what we are doing. This is a very important Section. At the present time if you start an Artillery range over certain people's land you have to pay compensation to the people affected, because there is a certain amount of risk behind the butts. That is the practice in times of peace. If under this Bill a rifle range is set up, and certain people are effected in the neighbourhood, they could not exercise such rights, and they have no right to compensation. If that is so, what is the object of this Clause? What is the meaning of the words "notwithstanding that such user could, but for this provision, have been restrained as being in contravention of any covenant, or for any other reason, and no person interested in any adjoining or neighbouring land shall be entitled to restrain such user or to recover damages," and so on? I should like to know if any member of the Committee can tell me the meaning of this Clause. What is the object of it? Is it to prevent persons who get compensation at the present time get-ting compensation in the future? I should like to know what the Committee think we are passing this Clause for. I have tried myself to understand it, and I fail to see what the object is. Is it to allow the Government to do something under the Clause without paying the compensation which has had to be paid before? I would point out that no compensation is to be paid if the land is used by a Government Department for a purpose for which it could have been used if the land had been acquired under the Defence Acts or the Military Lands Acts. I am sorry if I annoy the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, if that is not so, I do not see the point of the Sub-section. It distinctly says that no compensation shall be payable in that case.

Sir G. CAVE

The effect of the Clause is to allow the Government to use the land after they have bought it for defence purposes. If, without this Clause, they could have acquired it without paying compensation, then they are to pay nothing.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Words proposed there inserted.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move to leave out the words "or to recover damages in respect of the depreciation of the land in which he is so interested by reason of such user."

The effect of this Amendment is to leave the right to damages. The omission of the words leaves an additional remedy to the owner of the land.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move to leave out the words "recover such damages," and to insert instead thereof the words "restrain such user."

Mr. WHITE

I should like to know what will be the effect of these Amendments? Assuming that the Government purchase land and acquire it permanently under this Section, are they to have the same right of user as the vendor himself had? The original owner had the ordinary rights to do as he liked with the land, and unless he committed a nuisance his neighbours had no right to interfere. Is the Government user to be of a more limited character? Assuming that they use the land in such a way that whilst it does not constitute a nuisance, still it does depreciate the value of the neighbouring land, will the owners of the neighbouring land have a right of action against the Government which they would not have had if the land had been used similarly by the owner from whom the Government purchased?

Sir G. CAVE

The Government Department can only use the land for Government purposes. If in doing that they should be guilty of a nuisance, or of some act for which an individual would have to pay damages, or might be restrained, then the Government must pay compensation.

Mr. WHITE

Are these damages limited then to cases where there is something in the nature of a nuisance?

Sir G. CAVE

Yes, or such as otherwise would render a private owner liable to be restrained.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understand that if a Government Department uses land or buildings, or both, for any purpose under these particular Acts, and thereby causes a nuisance, the Government cannot be sued or restrained, but, if they cause a nuisance apart from that particular user to which they are entitled, then an action will lie.

Sir G. CAVE

indicated dissent.

Sir TUDOR WALTERS

I understand if the Government, as purchasers, do anything which in the case of a private individual would have been held to be to the detriment of the neighbours, or anything which is in contravention of the conditions under which they acquire the land, they will be liable in precisely the same way, and the effect of this Amendment is to do away with any privileged position in which the Government would have been placed. They acquire the rights which the vendor himself had, and no more than his rights, and if they commit a nuisance they are liable in the same way, with the one exception that if they buy for a specific purpose—if, for instance, they buy land with a shell factory upon it—and they continue to use it as it has been used, they are not to be open to an action, but they may not create a fresh nuisance for which a private owner would be liable without themselves being liable to pay compensation.

Sir G. CAVE

The Bill goes further than my hon. Friend suggests. If the Government desire to go on making shells, even although they are a nuisance, they cannot be restrained by injunction, but they will have to pay compensation for the damage they cause The only privilege the Government gets under this Clause is that they are not subject to an injunction. They cannot have the place shut up, but they have to pay compensation.

Question, "That the words 'recover such damages' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Words "restrain such user" there inserted.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move to leave out the words "within twelve months," and to insert instead thereof the words "at any time."

There is no particular reason why the application should be made within twelve months of the acquisition of the land. If damage results from user which would have been illegal but for this Act, there is no reason why they should not apply for damages at any time. It seems to me that twelve months is too short a time in which to discover whether the user is a nuisance to any particular adjoining land or not. There is no reason why there should be any restriction at all.

Sir G. CAVE

I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that twelve months is rather too short; but, on the other hand, if you put in "at any time" that is too long. I would, therefore, suggest that we should put in "two years" instead of "twelve months." That is the time which is laid down in certain railway Acts, and I suggest that would be time enough in which to find out whether there is a nuisance or not. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not persist in his Amendment. If he will withdraw it, I will move to insert "two years."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move to leave out the words "twelve months", and to insert instead thereof the words "two years".

Sir F. BANBURY

I think my right hon. and learned Friend was right in saying that there ought to be a limit, and the only question is how long that limit ought to be. I think two years is too short. The period of limitation which is common among the ordinary people of this land is six years. I think that would be much nearer the mark, and I would suggest that the Government should say five years. It might be that the land was in occupation of a tenant who only had it for a very short time and did not in the least care whether the land were depreciated or not. The owner might be away and not know within such a short time that the land had been depreciated. The tenant might be interested in a Government factory and might not acquaint him with what was going on. He might, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) suggests, be manager of the factory living in a neigbouring house which the owner had let, so that he might go away and recuperate his finances, which had been seriously depleted by the exactions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The landlord might know nothing whatever about it, and come back one day and find that a nuisance had been created. The Government are really for once so reasonable that I think in all probability they will agree to extend the period to five years.

Sir G. CAVE

If my right hon. Friend wants a bargain, will he say three years?

Sir F. BANBURY

Three years is better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Very well, I suppose I must accept that suggestion.

Mr. WHITE

I am rather sorry that the Government have made this concession. I think three years is too long, and that one year is reasonable. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has spoken of a precedent. The precedent which occurs to one is the limit of time under the Public Authorities Protection Act In that Act the limit of time that is given for bringing actions of various classes is six months. I quite agree that six months would have been too short a period within which to bring an action against the Government here, but I think a year was reasonable. I think that the two years suggested could reasonably have been accepted, and I do hope that the learned Solicitor-General will not at least extend the period beyond three years.

Question, "That the words 'twelve months' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

Does the Solicitor-General wish to alter his Amendment to three years?

Sir G. CAVE

Yes.

Question, "That the words 'three years' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to move, after the words "provided that" ["as the Commissioners may think just: Provided that—"], to insert,

  1. "(a) nothing in this Section shall authorise the contravention of any general or local Act of Parliament, or of any by-law, regulation, or order made thereunder;
  2. "(b) any street, building, or work which has been formed, erected, or constructed on any such land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of any general or local Acts relating to streets or buildings and with any by-laws or regulations made thereunder shall, unless the authority by whom such provisions, by-laws, or regulations are enforced consent to the continuance thereof, either be so altered as to comply with such provisions, by-laws, or regulations, or be discontinued or removed within such reasonable time after such land or building has ceased to be occupied by a Government Department as such authority may order, and the owner shall have power to enter upon and carry out any works without the consent of any other person, and if he fails to comply with such order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which such non-compliance continues, and such authority as aforesaid may remove any such building or work and recover the expense incurred in such removal from the owner in a summary manner as a civil debt."

This Amendment which stands in my name and in that of other hon. Members is very similar to that which precedes it on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook), but I think it is the one which is desired by the local authorities. I find it a little difficult to understand where exactly we are now that this Clause has to some extent been altered; but I think this Amendment is still required. The first part proposes that nothing in this Section shall authorise the contravention of any general or local Act of Parliament or of any by-law, regulation, or order made thereunder; and the second part provides in effect that the building laws which exist in different parts of the country shall be enforced for any land acquired by the Government under this Act at a reasonable time after it has ceased to be occupied by the Government Department.

The Government have taken possession of estates and have erected buildings during the War in complete disregard of the building laws. I have in my mind an example in London where they took possession of an estate in respect of which plans had been submitted by the owner to the Building Acts authority, which had approved them. The Government took possession, reduced the width of the streets, and generally laid out the land on lines which would not satisfy the Building Acts conditions if continued indefinitely. Nobody complains of that; but some limit ought to be placed to that state of things, and the terms of the Bill do seem to open the door to the creation of slums. They might be used, when the Government have taken possession of this property and have disposed of it, to bring about a state of things which might serve the purpose of the Government, but which would not promote the health of the community. It is only reasonable that the Government should desire to recoup themselves for, expenditure, but they ought not to do that at the expense of the health of the community. I suggest that this Amendment is a reasonable one, because it gives power to the Building Acts authority to consent to an infringement of the building laws if they think it is reasonable that that should be done. It does, at any rate, make obligatory once more the building laws which have been set up for a series of years, and which do secure the health of the community. I think this is a point of considerable importance, and I hope the Solicitor-General may be able to meet it.

Mr. G. THORNE

Will the Solicitor-General say whether the Government accept the principle contained in this Amendment, and whether they are prepared to meet it in some way in this Bill?

Sir G. CAVE

The Amendment is not unreasonable, and I am prepared to accept it in principle. One condition I should like to make is that in the event of the local authority insisting on the immediate taking down of the building there ought to be some appeal granted to a person who might be injured by that requirement. The effect of paragraph (b) is that any building erected on land, and which contravenes, the local by-laws, shall, unless the authorities by whom the by-laws are enforced consent to its continuance, be altered or pulled down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not object to giving an appeal to the Local Government Board in cases of this kind, and that could be done if we were to insert after the word "enforced" ["Regulations are enforced"] the words "or in the event of their refusal, the Local Government Board." With the insertion of those words, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

Sir T. WALTERS

I think that suggestion is really a most excellent one, and one that is in the interest of housing and an improvement of the Clause the hon. Gentleman has submitted. It falls to my lot to have a good deal to do with local authorities in the matter of housing. One does not care to speak disrespectfully of august bodies, but one finds that they have not always taken a very enlightened view, and if it happened that any of these works erected, or particular housing schemes that have been put up, were found not to be strictly in accordance with some rather old-fashioned local by-laws, a deadlock might arise, and difficulty might be experienced in doing justice. The Local Government Board, with its knowledge of town planning, and its excellent staff of technical advisers, would be just the body to deal with a situation of that kind, and from the point of view of the authorities would save anything detrimental being done to good housing, whereas the proprietors of these particular estates, and the Government Departments, would be protected from having housing schemes destroyed by a technical objection of the local authorities. If the Solicitor-General incorporated that in this Amendment I think the cases of the authorities and of the State Departments will both be met.

Sir G. CAVE

I should like to point out that, having regard to the change made in Clause 4, confining it to Government occupation, the Amendment is not quite in the proper form here. May I, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman's permission not to accept it now, on the understanding that I will put it in on Report, at the proper place, probably Clause 5?

Mr. P. HARRIS

I must point out that I said I found it difficult to understand where we were. I agree to the Solicitor-General's suggestion.

Sir F. BANBURY

I confess that, at first, I had not grasped what the Amend- ment meant. As I understand it, what it means is that if a private individual takes over certain huts that have been put up by the Government, the Government not having been obliged to erect the buildings under the local by-laws, the local authorities come in and say, "You have bought these, but you must put them up again, under our by-laws, according to our conditions." I am not at all sure that I agree with that. The by-laws are very oppressive in some cases. There was a certain Mr. Justice Grant, who had a big action against a local authority, and I am not at all sure that it is advisable that we should give these extended powers to the local authorities. It is always necessary, I find, to look with suspicion on an Amendment moved by a member, or an ex-member, of the London County Council, and this was such a very long and involved Amendment to the layman that, for a moment, I do not understand it. I think, therefore, that it had better be moved on the Report stage, when we can consider what action should be taken.

Sir E. CORNWALL

The right hon. Baronet who has just spoken said we ought not to give these extended powers to local authorities. I venture to remind the Committee that this is not giving powers, but taking away powers, unless we are careful. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to prevent legislation of this kind taking away powers given to local authorities after very long and careful discussion in this House. It is not right to say that this is giving powers, and I think the Solicitor-General, when he considers it on Report, should bear that in mind, and not what the right hon. Baronet said.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not mean for a moment that the local authorities were going to have fresh powers given to them in the ordinary way. But this is not in the ordinary way. It may be that I have not fully understood it, but it might happen that a Government Department might have erected certain huts, and said to the owner of the land, "If you choose to take back these huts at a certain price, which we will fix, you can take back the land and the huts," and the owner might agree, being under the impression that he had secured good value. Then the local authority says that its by-laws, which I agree are already in existence, are to apply to these particular huts. I am rather inclined to think that that might be all right, but it is rather a strong order, I think, because it practically condemns the buildings which the Government have put up, and renders them useless in the hands of a private individual unless he alters them to suit the conditions of the local authority. I think that ought to be carefully considered.

Sir T. WALTERS

There is the appeal to the Local Government Board, and they decide whether these huts are suitable for human habitation. The huts might well have been suitable for temporary use during the War, but not suitable for permanent habitation. On the other hand, it would not be right that they should be condemned, if they were fit for human habitation, because of the local by-laws. With this appeal to the Local Government Board, with their staff of technical advisers, I think justice will be done.

Mr. P. HARRIS

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (a), as it contains something which might be objected to.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "compensation" ["no compensation should be payable"], to insert the words "other than compensation in respect to a breach of a restrictive covenant."

I think there ought to be compensation where a restrictive covenant is broken.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "or if used by a person deriving title under a Government Department for a purpose certified by the Department to be in the interests of national defence." This is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

5.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c). This is one of the Amendments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), which he has asked me to move. I understand that the effect of the Subsection is that where compensation would be payable by a Government Department, if the Department think that the compensation is high, instead of paying compensation, they may purchase the land of the holder at the price which would have been the proper value of the land if the depreciation had not occurred. Ostensibly, I think, that seems fairly reasonable, but on considering it, when I saw that my hon. and gallant friend had an Amendment down, I think perhaps it might lead to hardship. Suppose that a Government Department had to pay a certain amount of compensation, and they thought they could do better by buying the land at the value at which it was before it was depreciated, and then selling it. I am sure the temptation in such a case would be great, and that the Government Department would exercise their right. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, in many cases these people have put their land at the disposal of the State for patriotic reasons, and if they like to get their own land back again I really think that because the State may think compensation is a little too high, or that they could do better by purchasing the land at its previous value, they ought not to be allowed to do so. It may be that some safeguard will be required against very excessive compensation, but I suggest to the Government that they should accept this Amendment subject to consideration upon the Report stage as to whether or not some safeguarding words might not be necessary.

Sir G. CAVE

I cannot accept this Amendment and I think we ought to retain these words. This paragraph does not refer to a man who has put his land at the disposal of the Government, but rather to the owner of adjoining land who says that his property is injured by the works put up by the Government. In a case of that kind it may be that the owner of quite a small property makes a claim for compensation which is very large indeed, perhaps as much as the whole value of the land. In a case like that the Government ought to have some remedy. The effect of the paragraph is that the Government may say, "You are asking too much, we will buy you out, not, of course, at the depreciated value of the land, which you say is caused by the Government works, but at the value of the land before our works were put on it." That is not unfair, especially having regard to the suggestion that the price will be settled by the Commission, and I hope the Committee will stand by it.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

The Government by this innocent looking paragraph are getting practically compulsory pur- chase without any of the usual safeguards by which compulsory purchase is surrounded. There is a good deal in it that will require looking into at a later stage.

Sir T. WALTERS

This is a most interesting and useful provision. It brings to my memory some delightful episodes in my past career where I have seen claims made for damage done to land by something that has happened on adjoining works which has made me wonder what could be the real value of the land if the damage done to it amounted to such a large sum. The provision is a most interesting check upon the imagination of people who put forward claims for compensation. On the other hand, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has pointed out, you must not lose sight of the damage done by severance, even though the claim might be made for a comparatively small area of land. If the Government exercise the powers conferred by this Bill and purchase the land, that purchase might, by the severance of that particular property from another section of the same ownership, cause injury to the owner. While I quite agree with this particular power, there ought to be a safeguard against injury caused by severance, apart from mere injury to a particular piece of land.

Sir F. BANBURY

Would not the question of excessive compensation to which the Solicitor-General referred be settled by a Court? If the owner of the land could not show that the damage done was £1,000, and he asked for £10,000, the Court would decide what the proper amount should be. Although I think some safeguard may be necessary, the paragraph goes too far, and the point made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) is a good one, that under the guise of a Clause which has a very innocent character, the Government are getting compulsory purchasing powers.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison)

expressed dissent.

Sir F. BANBURY

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I think it goes very near it. Would the Government give an undertaking to somewhat modify the Clause on Report stage?

Sir G. CAVE

We will consider what has been said, and see if anything can be done.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "may require the claimant to sell," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall, if required by the claimant, purchase."

I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) to move this Amendment; on his behalf. It would be a great advantage to the adjoining owner, no doubt, if this paragraph were included in the Bill. Suppose the Government came alongside a landowner and, by the erection of works, create a nuisance which renders the adjoining land useless to the owner for the purposes to which it was previously put. The Clause as it stands gives the landowner power to ask for damages against the Government in certain cases, but it gives the Government power to buy the land if they do not like the amount asked. The Amendment says that if the owner of the land finds that injury has been done to him, he may require the Government to purchase the land from him.

Sir T. WALTERS

made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. RAWLINSON

The hon. Member takes the view that that would be rather serious. Apparently he has very little confidence in the tribunals set up to try land cases, although I believe that he has acted as arbitrator in such cases himself.

Sir T. WALTERS

Very frequently.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I should have the greatest confidence in him if he were the arbitrator, and should not have the slightest doubt that if a claim were laid before him for an improper amount, he would not grant it. There would be very little harm in inserting this Amendment. If a man puts forward a claim, he will simply get what was the value of the land to him. If the Government make the land useless to him for the purposes for which he required it, it is only right that they should, if necessary, take the land away from him. It is not the owner's fault if the Government come alongside his property and cause him a nuisance, therefore the proper person to have the right to say whether the land shall be taken over is the owner of the land and not the Government.

Sir G. CAVE

This Amendment would have two results. In the first place, it would destroy the safeguard which the Committee have just agreed shall be put into the Bill in some form or another. Secondly, it would produce this extraordinary result: That the man who wanted to sell his land would only have to make a claim, good or bad, for compensation and immediately the Government would have to buy his land. There is no condition that it shall be a good claim. The claimant for compensation would have a right to claim that the Government should buy him out at a price to be fixed. That is a very novel proposal and is really going too far. The Government could not possibly accept it.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I agree that the Solicitor-General was entitled to make the point that the Amendment is drafted in the wrong form. I am not responsible for that. I only received the letter asking me to move it a short time ago. Still, the spirit of the matter remains, and it could be carried out perfectly well by improved drafting. However, I do not wish to press the point, because I agree that the Amendment is not in the form in which I should like to put it. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RAWLINSON rose to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the word "the" ["claimant to sell the land"], and to insert instead thereof the word "his."

The object of this Amendment is to deal with the point of severance which has been raised by other hon. Members. It means that if the Government elect to purchase a man's land they must take the whole and not the little bit which he can prove to have been injured by the particular nuisance.

Sir T. WALTERS

That might mean buying a very large estate.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I am not going to press the Amendment, because the Solicitor-General has told us he is going to consider the whole question of severance between now and the Report stage. I do not propose to move the Amendment, and therefore withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will move his manuscript Amendment?

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "accident due to."

I do not know whether the Solicitor-General thinks these words are necessary. I do not know what the word "accident" means. It has a highly technical meaning in certain cases connected with workmen's compensation and so forth. It does not seem to add anything at all to the sense of the paragraph. It is a very dangerous matter, and the words might be construed as meaning far more than is intended.

Dr. ADDISON

I am advised that these words should not be omitted. Under the Clause as amended we have not deprived the owner of any right to damages. This particular part was put in in order to secure that the person should have a right to damages in a case where an explosion at a factory had more or less destroyed neighbouring property. It would give the people a right to compensation, because of the explosion being an accident, which they would not otherwise have. The Commission presided over by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland made this suggestion, and it was put in in order to cover cases of this kind. There is no particular point in omitting these particular words.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I have no objection to the words of the paragraph except to the words "accident due to." In the case the right hon. Gentleman put of an explosion the Government might say it was not an accident, but was due to gross negligence.

Dr. ADDISON

That is the very point. Those people would not have any case unless we put the words in.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Oh, yes, they would!

Dr. ADDISON

No, the words were expressly put in to include them.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert new paragraph, "(e) nothing in this Section shall affect the liability of any person in respect of any contravention of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, or the Rivers Pollution Acts, 1876 and 1893, or of any local Act dealing with the like matters, or affect the powers conferred by any Act, whether public, general, or local, on any local authority, board of conservancy, or other public authority, with respect to the prevention of the pollution of rivers, or the abatement of nuisances caused by the emission of smoke or other noxious fumes."

Mr. HARDY

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could not add words something on the lines of the Amendment on the Paper. This seems only to deal with public authorities, and it seems to me hard that riparian owners should not also receive some relief. I can speak from my own knowledge of cases where very great damage has been done to the riparian owner, the whole of his water supply being entirely contaminated and made unfit to use by reason of the drainage from camps. This is a matter not only of public but of private importance. I think there ought to be some words added, in connection with a real nuisance like that of pollution, to protect the rights of riparian owners as well as public authorities.

Sir G. CAVE

We could not have words of that kind. The object of the paragraph is to protect the public. The words my right hon. Friend refers to would operate for the benefit only of private owners, and if we were to put them in the effect would be that the private owner if he was injured could obtain an injunction and shut up the camp or factory. The whole policy of the Bill is that the private owner shall be compensated for injury, but shall not have a right to an injunction. If these words went in he would have a right to an injunction, and very grave injury might be done to the public. He retains his right of compensation in full, but we do not think these words ought to go in, because they would put a veto on the use of land.

Mr. BRUNNER

I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "nor shall anything in this Section authorise any interference with or infringement of the rights of any riparian owner or prejudice or affect any such rights."

I do not think the Solicitor-General has quite covered the question. It seems to me that the abstraction of water is not covered at all by anything which he has now put in. The pollution of rivers and nuisance caused by smoke are down, but what happens if water is abstracted, either temporarily by means of a dam or permanently by being taken out of the stream altogether?

Sir G. GAVE

The owner gets compensation.

Sir F. BANBURY

This is a very important Amendment. As I understand it, not only for the War but for long after the War, whenever the Government purchases any land, they would have the right to prevent the riparian owner having that water to which he had the right, and he might find himself in six or seven years time deprived of the water to which he had a right. I do not know why an individual should be treated worse than a corporation, but you must not consider that a riparian owner is an individual. In many cases he is not. I know cases of small riparian owners, perhaps owning both sides for three or four miles of a river or brook, which supplies many farms and one or two villages with water. If that was to be dammed somewhere higher up the stream, or if it was to be polluted, the village and the farms would be deprived of that to which they certainly have a right, and if a corporation or a municipality or a local authority is to be allowed the privilege of an injunction to preserve its water the rights of a riparian owner, who may be acting for a considerable number of other people, ought also to be preserved. I hope that if we are not met on this question we shall divide.

Sir T. WALTERS

We talk about public authorities and riparian owners. Very often it is difficult to realise where the functions of one commence and the duties of the other terminate. The riparian owner is concerned, of course, in the protection of his water rights, but he may be concerned both directly and indirectly. If water is abstracted from the stream, or there is pollution of a water-course over which no particular local authority has any jurisdiction or claims any interest, it may be a serious disadvantage to half a dozen villages or to a large agricultural estate. It is all very well, when you are dealing with a stream running through a city, where you have local authorities who are vigilant and alert in the protection of the interests of the people, but where these streams are in country districts, where, perhaps, one large estate owner is looked upon as the general custodian of public interests, he has no locus standi under the Bill. Therefore, the people affected will look to him for protection and find that he has no powers. I am concerned to ascertain whether there are powers in the Bill which make it perfectly clear that the Government may not pollute these water-courses; whether they are under the control of local authorities; or whether they have no particular guardian except the riparian owner, may not divert the water, or permanently abstract from it a considerable source of supply, and so seriously injure people lower down the stream. You may divert a stream for some trade purpose, and cut off the entire water supply of a whole district previously dependent upon it. I am not, for the moment, in the least concerned about the interests of the private owner. What I am concerned about is that the water-courses which have protection are not only those under the immediate control of local authorities or conservancy boards, but that all those public water-courses which are ordinarily regarded as being merely under the protection of the riparian owner are protected from pollution or diversion. Compensation, of course, meets the case of an estate owner. If his pocket is affected you can pay him, but if you injure an estate owner in his riparian rights and pay him for it, that is no satisfaction to the unfortunate people who are dependent on the water supply which is diverted or polluted. My remarks may seem quite foolish from a legal standpoint, but I want a clear under standing, because I know of a considerable number of cases in Yorkshire, adjoining great works which have been erected during the War, and I want to know what is going to happen to the people who live on the banks of these streams and watercourses. It will not satisfy them if the riparian owner is compensated and their interests are not safeguarded.

Mr. STUART - WORTLEY

The Solicitor-General's answer to the contention of this Amendment is really an assertion that unless there is a conservancy board or local authority interested there is no public or general interest in the purity or the volume of the streams of water. If we lived in the gloomy 'fifties or the self-satisfied 'sixties we might be willing to listen to such an awful doctrine as that, but I cannot conceive any in- stance which serves as a better example to us even in the matter of what appear to be the most purely private rights in the perpetual surveying of large and public interests which the old laissez-faire doctrine always left completely out of sight than this instance of streams of water which everyone wishes should not be polluted, and, above all, should not be abstracted from or depleted. Most people now, and certainly many more in the future, will consider one of the highest public interests the preservation of rivers in their unpolluted state so far as possible. For the sake of the defence of the realm during the War we may be willing to submit to pollution, diversion and depletion. The question of an injunction for the infringement of a private right is a mere matter of machinery which can be got rid of, but it is the assertion of an old-time exploded doctrine which brings me to my feet.

Dr. ADDISON

I think there has been some misunderstanding in putting down the Amendment. It was put down under advice to cover the case of pollution of streams, and it would not prejudice the persons described by my hon. Friend.

Sir T. WALTERS

I do not believe the Act of 1876 gives protection to all these cases. I believe before a local authority can take action for pollution they must have some right of jurisdiction over the stream. The stream might be polluted a long way up in some rural district, and there might not be powers under the Act. I am very dubious as to whether there are any general powers that give sufficient protection, and I think by defining what you do here you prejudice our position, because by defining you limit.

Dr. ADDISON

Our purpose is similar to that of my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will undertake to look into the point. In respect to the drawing of water from the owner, I am advised that that is a nuisance and he would be entitled to claim compensation under the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY

Would he get his water?

Dr. ADDISON

That is another point. I suppose the compensation would be in such a form that he would be able to provide himself with water out of what he would get as compensation. Our desire is that we should not have a great undertaking brought to a standstill by an injunction, and this particular Amendment is brought to cover the case to a large extent. However, the Solicitor-General will look at the points raised. So far as the effect upon individual owners is concerned, I believe the Clause as now amended covers all the rights that they would otherwise have.

Sir R. ADKINS

Where there are munition works which it is in the public interest should be continued, we want to be sure that the interests of the public and of the private owners should be conserved in every way short of an injunction which would stop the work. I think the words of the Solicitor-General's Amendment go perhaps a little further in their effect than my hon Friend (Mr. Brunner) thinks they do. I have not the Act of 1876 at my finger-ends or in my mind, but my impression is that so far as county councils go, their powers extend to every brook in the county, so far as concerns the question of the pollution of streams. I think that is so, and if it is, that ought to be added; but if it is not, it is perfectly clear that sonic other words should be added so that not even the smallest stream whose pollution can affect the public health can be left polluted without that pollution being in some way stopped by the Government, who are the cause of the pollution. In regard to abstraction of water, that is a somewhat different thing. You may have water abstracted and the compensation which the riparian owner can get under the Bill may be sufficient for him, but abstraction of the water may have, indirectly, a considerable effect upon the health of a village a little lower down the stream, and yet that effect may not—and I do not think is—so direct as to be covered by these words in the Amendment. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter very carefully and give a pledge to the Committee that on the Report stage they will see that such words are inserted, that except the right of injunction all present rights should continue, and that whore there is danger to health, either by active pollution of the stream or by the abstraction of water, that that shall not be allowed, but that by some means or other it shall be stopped, where it results from the presence of a munition works. I think the words of the Solicitor-General's Amendment carry further than some of my hon. Friends think, but I am not certain that they cover the case of the abstraction of water, and I do hope he will give the pledge to deal with that. In the case of a private owner, I should have thought that the fact that he cannot get an injunction would be taken into consideration by any Court in the fixing of compensation. In regard to the question of public health, that is of very great importance in a particular locality in the neighbourhood of a munition factory. I hope that in regard to these matters we shall have perfect and peremptory security if the words in the Bill do rot fully deal with them.

Sir G. CAVE

We have all the same object in view. We will endeavour to give full protection to the public. We desire to do that.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman as regards pollution, but that does not meet the point of those who have asked me to call attention, to the position in which they are placed. I refer to the millers. They are complaining of the abstraction of water. The Solicitor-General is quite open. He says, that supposing the Government require it they shall have right to take water from the mill owners down the stream. That is-what I wish to oppose. It may be necessary during the War that the Government-should take away the water, but I maintain that by enabling them to take away the water in such a way as to prevent mill owners carrying on their business down the stream we are giving too big a power to the Government under this Bill. It is no answer to say to these mill owners, "You may get compensation under the Bill." They are not asking for compensation in this particular case, so much as the power to say that their business should not be stopped altogether by the water being abstracted from the river. It is not quite clear that they would get compensation under this Bill, because the words of the Section are "adjoining or neighbouring owners." Whether those words would apply to a mill owner some distance down the stream would be matter for argument. When he is making his claim he is not making a legal claim for damages, but he has a right to go to the Commissioners and to get such damage as the Commission think just, and he has got to do it within three years of the time that the injury takes place. Does that mean that he can only get damages up to the date, say, on which he makes application within the three years in respect of the water he has failed to get, or is he to get his damages once and for all—that is, for the loss of his business altogether? If that is so, it will be a very serious matter of compensation for the Government if they give compensation. It seems to me that it would be a monstrous thing to give such power to the Government that a whole business can be absolutely destroyed down the stream, even though compensation is given, and it is not very clear that compensation would be given to these particular owners down the stream.

Sir E. CORNWALL

I would like to state the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. A controlled firm has taken nineteen acres of land upon which they have put up accommodation for a large number of workers, but the sanitary arrangements are not what they would be if they were intended to be of a permanent nature. What the Metropolitan Water Board want to know is what their position would be under this Bill after the War. The insufficient sanitary arrangements ought not to continue, and no compensation would satisfy the Metropolitan Water Board, because there may be pollution. This particular land is near the intake of water which supplies London, and it is of the utmost importance that immediately the War is over the whole of these arrangements should, with the greatest possible speed, be brought into proper order and under proper regulations. No provision for compensating the Metropolitan Water Board meets this case. What they want is that the pollution should cease. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could tell us what the position of the Metropolitan Water Board would be under his Amendment, or whether he will consider it between now and the Report stage. We are not differing at all in principle; it is only a question of what provision is made in this Bill for a case of that kind.

Sir G. CAVE

I think public authorities will be protected by my Amendment. If not, I will look into it.

Sir F. BANBURY

My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) raised the question as to whether it is clear that compensation will be given in certain cases. Compensation is not sufficient. What you want is to prevent the water being abstracted or polluted. For instance, the Metropolitan Water Board do not want compensation; they want to have the water in a pure state so that you can give it in a pure state to their consumers. Therefore, I do not think that compensation is of very much use. Of course, it is better than nothing. Take the case which I mentioned, where the water was taken from a farm and certain cattle grazing in the field along the banks of the river. It is a very valuable thing to have water in a field. If that water is taken away it may not be possible within that field or within three or four fields to find a well which could be sunk with the money given as compensation. This is a very important matter, and I fail to see why a private owner in the sense which I have indicated should not have the same power in a matter of this sort as any local authority. I am not at all sure that the meaning of the Amendment as regards riparian owner would include the Thames Conservancy. I do not suppose it would. It must be borne in mind that the riparian owner is not actually an individual acting in his own interests, but that often he is acting in the interests of the locality. My right hon. Friend has very kindly said that he will consider whether or not something cannot be done on the Report stage. But we have got a great many things which are going to be considered on the Report stage, and I am very much afraid that he may forget them. What I would suggest is that the Government should allow this Amendment to be added to their Amendment on the understanding that if they think right they may alter it or negative it on the Report stage. By putting in this Amendment it means that when the Bill comes forward again we shall know exactly where we were. We shall not meet again until the middle of October. It may be that the Bill will not be taken until November, or it may even be taken the day before Christmas, although I hope not. The Government seem to be fond of taking Bills just before the Adjournment. If they take this Bill then we shall have an empty House, and these things will be forgotten. Therefore I hope the Government will consent to putting in these words as an addition to their Amendment, on the understanding that they can take them out on the Report stage or modify them if they think proper.

Mr. BOYTON

This Amendment seems to me of so far-reaching a character, and we are in Committee on so important a Bill, that it does not seem right when these points are brought forward the right hon. Gentleman should say he will deal with them on the Report stage. We have every confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, but is he not stretching matters a little too far? This Bill as drawn is being riddled through and through, and we have now got to a bono of contention like this. It is often said that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor, and here some individuals may be setting up new munition works, or some other kind of huge factory higher up the stream, and diverting the water from the small riparian owners and mill owners lower down the stream. I hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner), who moved this Amendment, will not be too complaisant. We ought to see whether there is any life in this Committee or not.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Original Amendment again proposed.

Sir F. BANBURY

In deference to the wishes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman we did not insist on challenging a Division on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as we understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give the matter further consideration.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. AINSWORTH

I desire to draw attention to a question which I hope my right hon. Friend may explain, as it affects the whole Bill. Speaking of interests that may be acquired, the Bill refers to interests acquired under this Act. I would like it clearly understood as to whether this Act applies to cases where the land is taken by the free invitation or with the assent of the owner. A great deal of land has been given freely by the owners in different parts of the country, and is at present in Government occupation for purposes under the Defence of the Realm Act, and these owners should have the same rights and powers with respect to compensation as are provided for under this Act for those whose land has been taken compulsorily by the authorities. All I would ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter carefully before the Bill conies rap on the Report stage.

Question put, and agreed to.