- (1) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any common, open space, or allotment, or the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any public or private park.
- (2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of the possession after the termination of the War or the acquisition of—
- (a) land belonging to any local authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916; or
- (b) land belonging to any company or corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking; or
- (c) land held by or on behalf of any governing body constituted for charitable purposes which at the commencement of the War was occupied and used by that body for the purposes of that body;
- (3) Where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land after the termination of the War for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period without the consent of the person with whom the agreement was made or the persons deriving title under him.
- (4) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land with respect to which an agreement has been made for the restoration thereof to the person previously in occupation thereof (other than an agreement to give up possession of land at the expiration of a tenancy) or, in the case of land subject to an agreement for sale to a Government Department, shall authorise the
2408 acquisition of the land otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement. - (5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land without the consent of the Commission where the purposes for which it is to be acquired are purposes other than those for which land can be acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903.
- (6) For the purposes of this Section the expression "governing body constituted for charitable purposes" includes any person or body of persons who have a right of holding or any power of Government of or management over any property appropriated for charitable purposes, and includes any corporation sole, and the governing body of any university, college, school, or other institution for the promotion of literature, science, or art.—[Sir G. Cave.]
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Sir G. CAVE(indistinctly heard): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate at once which of the Amendments I am prepared to accept. I propose to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Ash ford (Mr. Hardy), in Sub-section (1), substituting another form of words for the words "private park." I shall also accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), adding at the end of Sub-section (1) the words "or of any interest in such parks or grounds," which I think is a better form of his Amendment, at the beginning of the Clause. Then, in Sub-section (2), I propose to accept the Amendment leaving out the words "or the acquisition," and also the Amendment, adding at the end of Sub-section (2) the words,
"and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body."
2409 As far as acquisition is concerned, we propose, with some reluctance, under the influence of the opinion of many Members of the House, to agree to the provision that we shall not purchase compulsorily without the consent of the local authority. What I say about the local authority applies also in that respect to dock and harbour authorities and bodies of that kind. We have, therefore, put ourselves to some extent in the hands of the local authorities. That will not affect our powers under the Defence Acts. We propose to accept also the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hexham, leaving out in Sub-section (2) (b) the words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking." I shall also accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University in Sub-section (3), leaving out the words "after the determination of the War." I think, with these alterations, the Clause will meet the views of the Committee.
§ Clause read a second time.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "any" ["acquisition of any common"], to insert the words "interest in any."
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the spirit of my Amendment. The reason why I put the words in the first line as well as at the end is that I thought if they were not there it might be held that they could not come later.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "public or."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HARDYI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "any" ["acquisition of any common, open space"], to insert the words "land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, or is the site of any ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest."
I am very much obliged to the Government for their acceptance of this Amendment.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI think the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) is a great improvement. I 2410 know the class of case which my hon. Friend has in mind. It is the lands which are adjacent to a house, and which are not rated as park land, but which really form a portion of the amenities of the house. It is a very common thing in the South of England if a field, or similar land, or a farm, is adjacent to a house that it really forms part of the amenity of the dwelling-house but is not rated as a park, and in the popular sense is not accounted part of the park surrounding the house. By omitting the words which are suggested by my hon. Friend the matter is left somewhat wide, and I shall again draw attention to the matter on the Report stage. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will then bring up something which will meet the case of the particular class of field which, in the places referred to, forms a considerable acreage in the South of England. The case might be met by the addition of some such words as "or otherwise required by the amenities of such mansion house," referring, of course, to the mansion house which goes before. The present Amendment does not absolutely meet the case.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end, to add the words "or any interest in such land."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. PERKINSI beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end, to add the words "or of any land which, for the purposes connected with the present War, has been placed at the disposal of the occupying Department, or of the Government of India, or of the Government of any of the Overseas Dominions, or of the British Red Cross Society, or the St. John's Ambulance Association, voluntarily and without profit."
Probably the first part of this Amendment is covered, but I do not think that there has been any attempt to cover the second and third cases to which I refer, and they are common in England. The case is this: A Department of State, say, the Government of India, were lent a piece of land upon which they put a hospital. They occupied that hospital with Indian troops for a considerable time. Then they vacated possession. I do not know by what chain of events it happened, but the same hospital is now in occupation by the Government of New Zealand, and in due course it may be 2411 occupied by another Government Department. I am very anxious that the people who so generously placed this area of ground at the disposal of these two successive Government Departments should not hereafter suffer for their patriotism by being compelled to sell this land to the Government. The third case is a common case of people who patriotically placed a private house at the disposal of the Government and the Ked Cross Society, say, or the St. John's Ambulance Association, use it for a hospital. I am anxious that these people should not be punished hereafter for that patriotic act.
§ Sir G. CAVEI am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. There are many cases where in the occupation and possession direct loss has been paid for if sustained but no profit has been made. I am afraid the Amendment covers a very large number of cases which it is not intended to cover. Perhaps we may see afterwards if the case can be met in some other way.
§ Mr. PERKINSIt is a matter of general knowledge that throughout the country hundreds of houses have been placed at the disposal of the St. John's Ambulance Association for hospital purposes, and it seems hardly necessary that I should personally give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a list of them.
§ Sir G. CAVEI do not mean that.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "or the acquisition."—[Mr. G. Thorne.]
§ In Sub-section (2) paragraph (6), leave out the words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking."—[Mr. Pennefather.]
§ Mr. BOYTONproposed to move, in Subsection (2) paragraph (b), after the word "undertaking," to insert the words "or had been acquired for future extension or development of that undertaking."
I have in my mind some nine or ten acres belonging to a public utility company, which land has been taken over by the Government, the company having originally acquired the land for the purpose of developing their undertaking.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think there is some misapprehension. The hon. Member must remember that we have struck out the 2412 words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking," so that the words of the Amendment would not make sense.
§ Mr. BOYTONThe company have not actually used the land.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will see that the words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking," have been struck out. I do not think his words would read.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "without the consent of the appropriate Government Department, or, in the case of a university or a college at a university, without the consent of the governing body of the university or college, and if any question arises as to what Department is the appropriate Government Department, the question shall be determined by the Treasury."
I dare say the Solicitor-General can explain, but my trouble about these words is that they seem to leave the whole thing in a very unsatisfactory position after we have disposed of this Bill as to what land shall be occupied. We recognise the advantage of certain land being occupied by the Government hereafter, but when it comes to a question of leaving it entirely to an appropriate Government Department, I do not see that is a satisfactory way of dealing with matters of this magnitude, and I think it would be far better to leave those words out of the Bill, unless the Solicitor-General can explain what their real meaning is. It is very difficult for Members of this House, who have, perhaps, had long experience in various spheres of public life outside as well as inside the House, to know what it means, and I certainly do not know why we should legislate in the manner here proposed. What we want is that the Government should leave the proper responsible authorities in the country in the position they were before the War. This seems to set up any appropriate authority which may have to decide very great matters of public importance. I think, therefore, it would be better to leave these words out altogether.
§ Sir G. CAVEI wish the hon. Member had raised this point a few minutes ago when I accepted an Amendment on the basis that these words would stop in. If they stop in, and an Amendment we are 2413 coming to is adopted, the effect will be that during two years the Government Department will have the right to occupy the land of a local authority or statutory body subject to two conditions. One is that they get the consent of the proper Government Department, and the other is that they pay rent for the use of the land. We put in "the appropriate Department" for the reason that the Local Government Board, which has the interests of the local authorities very much at heart, objects to our using the land even for the two years without their consent. They say we may use the workhouses of the local body or other property of the local authorities during those two years, but they think it ought to be with their sanction. After the two years the occupation will continue both with the consent of the appropriate authority and the Railway and Canal Commission, but at no time will the land be purchased except with the consent of the local authority. We have given way to my hon. Friend and those who are with him on the main question—that is, acquisition. We are not now proposing to buy by compulsion against the wishes of the local authority, but we do think that up to two years it will be enough to obtain the permission of the appropriate authority.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me where are the words to the effect that the land cannot be obtained without the sanction of the local authority?
§ Sir G. CAVEIf he looks at the Amendment later on in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), which we propose to take because it is wider than the others, he will see that that point is met. The Amendment is: "and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body."
§ Sir E. CORNWALLThat meets my point.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that they propose to pay rent for the land. There is no Amendment to that effect.
§ Sir G. CAVEOh, yes; on Clause 1 we put in words to provide for rent in every case where land is retained under this Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. G. THORNEI beg to move, at the end of the proposed new Clause, to insert the words "and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI beg to leave out the words "after the termination of War."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HARDYI beg to move to leave out the words "(other than an agreement to give up possession of land at the expiration of a tenancy)."
I do not really know what is meant by these words, and they may cause very considerable hardship. When the Government entered upon land for the purpose of making camps it was all done very hastily and upon agreements which were only to run six months, and when they came before the Secretary for Ireland's Committee it was shown that they were in the form of tenancy agreements, and they declined to give anything beyond a six months' tenancy, or an agreement until the termination of the War or such time afterwards as national requirements necessitated. That agreement practically excludes all the people who came in under those conditions from any benefit under this Clause altogether. Landlords made agreements with the War Office which they imagined were perfectly binding, and now they are to be excluded from benefits given under other agreements by a letting of a more permanent character. I should like to hear what is the explanation.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe meaning of the words is that we are taking power to continue possession and in some cases to acquire land of which the authorities are in possession. In some cases they have gone in by agreement with the owners and sometimes with people not agreeing. In other 2415 cases the owners have said, "I will let you in but you must become my tenant; I want to put certain terms upon you and you may remain in as my tenant." In either case we desire to have power to continue possession for a time. There is in the lease or the tenancy agreement a common stipulation that at the end of the term the land shall be delivered up to the lessor. If you are going to comply with that it shuts out your power to retain possession for two years, and that is not the intention. Everybody ought to be on the same footing, including those who have simply let you in and those who have let you in on certain conditions. The effect of these words is to put both in the same position, and they refer to common form of agreement to give up possession.
§ Mr. HARDYI wish to enter my caveat against the way this point has been put. It was not the landlord who forced the agreement upon the War Office, but it was the War Office who forced the agreement upon the landlord, which is an entirely different matter. The War Office came with a printed agreement, and said, "We will take this land for six months." A most inconvenient period, because the tenant may leave at an unfortunate time when the land is in an objectionable condition. They would not vary that at all. In my own case it was nine months before I could get them to sign the agreement that they would only have my land for six months. They forced those agreements upon the people from whom they took the land, and now this Clause is going to exclude them from the Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to leave out of the proposed new Clause Sub-section (5). As far as I can read it the effect is that the consent of the Commission is required for purposes other than those for which land can be acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842–1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892–1903. If my recollection serves me right, earlier in the Debate we put in a Clause which said that the Department should only acquire land for the purposes of those particular Acts. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would state what those Acts meant—
§ Sir G. CAVEWe provided that land might be acquired for the purposes of those Acts or for the purposes of the War.
§ Sir F. BANBURYPerhaps my right hon. Friend will explain why those words are necessary.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe Government Department would be very glad to leave out this Sub-section, which requires the consent of the Commission, with an exception that where we come under the Defence Acts and the Military Lands Acts we can buy without the consent of anybody. It would not be right in those cases to require the consent of the Commission.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONSo far as it goes, I am strongly in favour of it, but even under the Defence Acts and the Military Lands Acts they have no power to buy under such favourable terms as under this Act.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "without the consent of the Commission."
I am afraid that there is no hope of the Solicitor-General excepting this Amendment. Of course, it would prevent the Department acquiring any hind compulsorily. That would be a very good Amendment from our point of view. I am afraid that I cannot expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept it, but I will move it in order to hear why he cannot do so.
§ Sir G. CAVEI could not accept this Amendment, because it would neutralise much that we have done in the Committee stage, and would really make this Act no improvement on the Defence Acts.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Proposed Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLWith regard to my new Clause (For Protection of Port and Dock Authorities), I would like to say—
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Clause standing in my name (For Protection of Railway Companies) was put on the Paper with a certain object, and I understand that negotiations are proceeding at the present moment. Under those circumstances, I shall not now move the Clause, but I may possibly move it on Report.