§ (1) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any interest in any common, open space, or allotment, or the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any 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 archæological interest, or of any interest in such land or grounds.
1227§ (2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of the possession after the termination of the War of—
- (a) land belonging to any local authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Emergency Provision) Act, 1916; or
- (b) land belonging to any company or corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public 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 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 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 1228 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.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "interest ' [" archaeological interest"], to insert the words "or is a national nature reserve."
I am asking for the insertion of this Amendment on behalf of the Nature Reserve Society, an institution which buys pieces of land in order to keep and perpetuate certain birds and small animals, very few of which are left in this country. They have bought 1,100 acres of land in Norfolk, at Blakeney Point, which has been vested in the National Trust, and therefore it is public property, although the public have not open access to it. It is kept for the preservation of flora and fauna, and for the study of erosion and accretion on the coast. This land has now been in the hands of the military for some time, and it would certainly ease the mind of the Nature Reserve Society if we could have these words inserted in the Bill.
§ Sir G. CAVEThese words really have no technical meaning. I do not know what is in law a national nature reserve. With regard to this particular place I am told that it is exceedingly improbable that such a place would be purchased by the Government, and I cannot say more than that on this point. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.
§ Mr. BRUNNERIf the Solicitor-General will look into this question for consideration in another place, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Dr. ADDISONI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
"Provided that—
It has been found by the Admiralty and the War Office necessary for them to lay down pipe lines, cables, and, I believe, a sewer in one place under a park, and it would be very undesirable that they should have to pull up the pipe lines or the cables, and in, the case of a sewer it might be allowed to continue running under the park. It is now proposed that we should have power to acquire the right to use and maintain those cables, lines or pipes. I recognise that paragraph (6) is a proposal quite of a different order. It appears that two cases have been discovered since the Bill passed through Committee which are not provided for. In one case there is a very large filling factory, a portion of which was erected on ground which could probably be described as a park. The whole expenditure on that particular place is nearly £1,000,000. This Amendment confines itself to eases where the buildings are used for the manufacture of munitions of war, and it authorises the compulsory acquisition of the whole of such property, including the mansion house. It is for the Department to satisfy the Commission that such acquisition is of national importance. It only applies to two cases, one is the filling factory, and the other is a large place for casting brass and rolling brass strip in connection with small arms ammunition and castings for fuses. In this case a portion of the factory comes in the north-east corner, and inroads have been made into the park in connection with various buildings. It is obvious that it would ruin the man's park just to leave the mansion house and the small strip of land which is left, and in such a case it would only be fair to call upon the Crown to pay proper compensation for the whole. We have suggested an Amendment to tie this down as narrowly as we can, and if we get these two cases covered I shall be satisfied. These 1230 cases would be excluded by the Bill as it left the Committee stage, and I hope the House will allow us to add words which will enable us to meet those two cases.
- (a) nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the acquisition, whether by
1229 agreement or compulsorily, of a right to use and maintain any cables, lines, or pipes which have been laid under any such land as aforesaid; and - (b) where before the passing of this Act there have been erected on any park, garden, pleasure ground, or farm, as above-mentioned, any buildings for the manufacture of munitions of war, the Commission may authorise the compulsory acquisition of the whole of such property, including the mansion house, if any, where they are satisfied that it is of national importance that it should be acquired."
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman has made out a very good case from his point of view for the Amendment, and he has taken considerable trouble to safeguard it; but it is a very strong order to say that a man may lose his house which has been in the occupation of his family for generations merely because a junior official, or an Army officer, in going round to choose a site, has happened to pass and has not taken the trouble to see if he can get another site, and the owner, being a patriotic man and knowing that the site has been chosen for purposes connected with the War, has said, "Of course, anything wanted for the War is at your disposal." A case was brought before my notice to-day. The War Office sent down an officer, and he chose certain land when within three or four miles there was better land for the purpose for sale. The officer was not acquainted with the district, but he happened to see this site and it suited him, and no objection was made by the owner because he wanted to do all he could to assist the Government in carrying on the War.
§ Dr. ADDISONThose cases will not be covered by this Amendment at all. There has to be a factory in addition.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere may have been a factory erected in the same way. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that these particular cases where a factory was erected are the only cases and that the owners knew at the time that there might be a permanent factory built on their land, I have nothing further to say; but I am afraid that he cannot do that, and what has occurred in the case I have mentioned has probably occurred in many others. Owing to the great hurry and the necessity of making preparations immediately, certain land was taken, and the owner, because he was patriotic, gave way. The Government now come down and say that in the interests of the nation they will have to take the property, because otherwise they would lose money. I am always in favour of economy, but the Government are not great apostles of economy. It is quite new that they should desire economy. I do not like this Amendment, but I do not know how we can amend it. It is a very strong order to take away a man's estate because he has been patriotic and 1231 has acceded to the demands made upon him by the nation. I do earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General whether they cannot in another place do something to modify this particular Amendment. It is impossible for me at the present moment to say how it can be modified, but if it is possible I think it ought to be done. I am sure that my right hon Friend, sitting on this side of the House in the days gone by, would have supported me in this particular case, and I hope he will use his influence to see that some justice is done to these people.
§ Mr. ASHLEYThe right hon. Gentleman made out a very good case, as was asknowledged by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and I quite see that probably in these two cases there is no option but to take the land. I understand the Government will not take the whole unless the owner wishes it, and that, I think, ought to be made clear. It is not quite clear in the Amendment. It rather reads as if they were binding themselves to take the whole. That would cost a great deal of money and might be inconvenient to the owner. I do not know who these people are, but if the Government are obliged to go back on what they undertook to do in Committee, they ought to give some extra compensation to the owners for the property which is going to be taken. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he should consider whether he could not in some way instruct the Commissioners in this case to give the extra 10 per cent. which used to be given in cases of compulsory acquisition. He agreed to exclude them entirely from the scope of the Bill in Committee. He now finds it necessary to go back upon his word, and I do therefore put it that some extra money ought, under the circumstances, to be given to these people.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONA satisfactory Clause was inserted in Committee and the Government have changed their minds about it. It is a little bit hard upon landowners that they should only receive notice of it this morning. I do not know these two cases.
§ Dr. ADDISONThey know all about it, and they do not object.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIf they know all about it and do not object, they must be 1232 peculiar people, and I should like to make their acquaintance as soon as possible, because they are the sort of people I should like to meet. If the right hon. Gentleman says that they have no objection, I have nothing more to say so long as we put in a provision simply referring to them, but we are making it more general The Amendment certainly ought to be drawn in another form. You ought to have power to take the land which you are now occupying, and, if the owner wishes it, to take the whole of his premises, including the mansion house and everything else. Drawn as it is, the Amendment is more than ordinarily monstrous. Some unfortunate man, who has had a building erected on his park, suddenly finds that the Government have power not only to take that portion, but to take the whole. They can hold over his head the threat that they are going to take away the home of his forefathers and the mansion house in which he has lived. I am sure that is an obvious mistake in drafting, and that it will be put right on some future occasion, but I should like an assurance upon the point. I feel sure that the Government must have a certain amount of guilty conscience in asking us to pass this Amendment at all.
§ Sir G. CAVEThere is no guilty conscience about it at all. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desires. We want power to take that portion on which the munition factory has been erected, but if the owner says you must take not only that part but the whole, then we want power to take the whole. We will take care that words are put in in another place to that effect. I agree that it is a strong thing to ask, but it is a strong case. The Amendment is confined to munition factories erected before this Act passes. In the particular cases which are in question, the expenditure in each instance amounts to about £1,000,000. It is only because it is a very special case that we ask the House to pass this Amendment.
§ Mr. ASHLEYWhat about the extra 10 per cent.?
§ Sir G. CAVEI do not see how that can be done.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "possession" 1233 ["Nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of the possession "], to insert the words "for more than three months."
It has been pointed out that we cannot be expected to turn out the moment the War ends, and that it is desirable to have some time to look round.
§ Dr. ADDISONI beg to move, in Subsection (2), paragraph (b), after the word "undertaking," to insert the words "other than land which before the commencement of the present War had ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking."
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) will have no objection to this Amendment. It excludes from this provision land which before the commencement of the War had ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking. There is only one case so far as I know, and that is the case of a place which had belonged to a railway undertaking, and which had been derelict and had been quite abandoned for some years before the War. It was taken by the Admiralty in the emergency, let us say, of the submarine service and is now used for this special purpose. It was quite a derelict piece of ground, but it did really belong, I think, to a railway company, or, at all events, to one of the companies mentioned in this paragraph. I see the right hon. Baronet does not like the words of my Amendment, and suggests that the words "superfluous land" should be used instead. I am not a lawyer, and I feel some hesitation in saying anything about that particular point, but I understand that the expression "superfluous land" is somewhat vague and is not capable of very exact definition. It also stands related to the expiration of a certain term of years, and it is quite open to question whether this land would or would not be called superfluous land. It certainly would be included in the words I propose, and it certainly had ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking. If it has ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking, I do not think that any railway, dock, canal, water, or other public company would have any complaint to make if it were treated on the same lines as other land. We do exclude it if it is necessary for the 1234 purposes of the undertaking, but if it merely happens to belong to them and is not necessary for their undertaking, I do not think that it should be excluded.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "than," and to insert instead thereof the words "superfluous land."
I am sure that no one would object to the particular land which the right hon. Gentleman has described as being derelict being taken for the purposes of the nation, but the words of the Amendment are very wide, and would include all sorts of land which may not for the moment be used. They would include temporarily disused land. The temporary disuse of the land does not by any manner of means imply that it will not later on be used for the purposes of the undertaking. The Railway Association, I think, are extremely moderate. I was inclined to ask the Government to withdraw the thing altogether, but they have said that if my Amendment is accepted they will be content. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am not a lawyer, but I have been informed that the expression "-superfluous land" is recognised by Statute and is the proper description of land which is not required for the purposes of the undertaking. I do not think that information would have been given to me if it were not correct, and therefore the objection of the right hon. Gentleman that the words are vague and are not a legal expression falls to the ground. We have met the Government very fairly, if not generously, during the Debate, and I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe difficulty of the Amendment is that it prevents the original Amendment having the operation we desire; otherwise, I would like to accept it. "Superfluous land," I quite agree, has a statutory meaning, but if there is a purpose for which the land may be required in connection with any undertaking, although it may not be intended to use it at any definite time, such land, although it may not have been used for ten years and is not immediately likely to be required, cannot be treated as superfluous land. I think it would be very dangerous to substitute words like these. See how they would operate in the case of a dock where the land is not being used 1235 and is not required. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of any place on railways which are affected by his point, we certainly would not desire to include them under this Bill, but probably his objection is theoretical rather than directed against particular cases.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI quite see the difficulty, but would it not be possible to do one of two things—put in the words, "except in cases of railway undertakings," or mention the particular case it is desired to deal with? It seems to me a little hard you should pass a general law which will apply to many people, when it is only really desired to deal with one particular case. As I gather, it is but one case that this provision is aimed at, and I would suggest if it cannot be done now, that in another place it may be possible to introduce words limiting the provision to the particular case for which it is required, or words might be put in exempting railways from the operation of the Clause. Still, I will not press my Amendment.
§ Sir G. CAVEIt would seem to be rather invidious to other undertakings to specially exempt railways, and I should rather hesitate to adopt that course in an Act of Parliament.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "of the appropriate Government Department, or "
This Amendment is one of a series, some of which are consequential. The object is to leave out the words "without the consent of the appropriate Government Department." It seems to me this Clause will be rather useless, because it can be overridden if the appropriate Government Department decides to override it. I do not like the idea that we should put into a Clause words providing that certain things shall not be done with other words declaring that they shall be done "if the appropriate Government Department consent." I see the question of the appropriate Government Department, should there be any dispute as to which that Department is, is to be settled 1236 by the Treasury. Perhaps I may be allowed on this Amendment briefly to refer to the other Amendments. If there is any question between two Government Departments then they are to be allowed to call in still another Government Department to act as judge in the case. Surely it should be some independent person, because no one can say that Government Departments are independent. They all stick by one another, everybody knows that, and it is only a fiction to say that they do not. I hope the Solicitor-General will consent to some modification of this Clause, so as to make it more likely to be useful.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe Clause referred to by my right hon. Friend has, of course, a double effect. It prevents the purchase of land without the consent of the company or corporation concerned, and the preceding words relate to the retention of possession of the land, which is not to be allowed without the consent of the appropriate Government Department. Take the case of a workhouse, or some other municipal buildings—probably the former place affords the best example. A good many workhouses are now being used by the Government, and you cannot under this Clause retain possession after the War without the consent of the appropriate Government Department, which in this case would be the Local Government Board. Where there is a question which is the right Department—be it the Local Government Board or the Home Office—it is necessary there should be somebody to decide the point, and in putting in the Treasury we have followed precedents set in existing Acts of Parliament.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs my right hon. Friend prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, N.E. (Sir E. Cornwall) providing that such consent shall be granted for a period of not more than two years after the termination of the War. There is something to be said against requiring possession to be surrendered immediately, but I do not think it should be a lengthy period.
Mr. D. WHITEBefore the right hon. Gentleman comes to a decision on that point, will he consider the relative merits of the Amendment which follows, an Amendment which, in the opinion of the 1237 Corporation of Glasgow, would be more acceptable and certainly would be practicable?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not mind which Amendment is taken.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI would suggest that the last Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the" Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White) should be accepted. You must give a certain amount of elbow room to the Departments after the end of the War. It may be necessary that the Local Government Board, or some other Government Department, should be consulted. Surely two years, however, is quite enough to give in a matter of this kind, and I would suggest that that should be the period fixed upon, and that after two years surrender of possession should be made.
§ Mr. BARNESI would like to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White). The Corporation of Glasgow, I know, attach some little importance to this Amendment, and they prefer the words suggested by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division to those mentioned by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury).
§ Sir F. BANBURYI should be quite willing to accept the words of the Corporation of Glasgow.
§ Mr. BARNESThank you!
§ Mr. CURRIEI also would urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the wording suggested by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division. The two Amendments are aimed at the same object. It is very desirable that a time limit should be placed upon the retention of the land in the circumstances.
§ Sir G. CAVEI should really like to Accept the Amendment, supported, as it is, by hon. Members, but I am told that there are cases where difficulty would arise if we were turned out in two years. For instance, take the case of stores. There are very large stores in some cases, some on land belonging to local authorities which is not very much used, and some on dock land. In such cases it cannot be retained without the consent of the Railway Commission. If we ask their leave to remain beyond two years, the authority will be heard and can put forward their 1238 objections. Unless we made out a very strong case, we should not be allowed to go on. I think that if we get the consent of the Commission and the consent of the Government Department, that ought to be enough protection in these cases. I hope we shall not be pressed to go beyond that, because there are practical difficulties in the way. Of course, we are not dealing with the two years' Amendment now.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CURRIEI beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "college" [" without the consent of the governing body of the university or college "], to insert the words "provided that such consent, if given, shall not authorise the retention of possession for a longer period than two years after the termination of the War."
I only wish to add that a time limit such as I suggest is very desirable.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg to second the Amendment. I feel bound to point out to the Solicitor-General that he is pledged to this Amendment. If he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 21st August, he will find that he himself said:
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 authority and the other is that they pay rent for the use of the land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st August, 1916, col. 2413, Vol. LXXXV.]It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman did there pledge himself to accept this Amendment.
§ Sir G. CAVEMy right hon. Friend is mistaken.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not see anything in this particular Clause which provides that the consent of the Commission is necessary. The consent of the Commission is necessary for the acquisition of land, but not for its retention. In Sub-section (5) of the Clause these words occur:
"Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land without the consent of the Commission."
But I do not see anywhere—I may be wrong—that the consent of the Commission is required for the retention of land.
§ Sir G. CAVEIt is in another part.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman says it is in another part of the Bill. That to a certain extent does modify the difficulty, but, at the same time, it does not seem clear to me. I remember perfectly well that in the Committee stage a great point was made by a large number of Members that these particular statutory companies or corporations should be treated a little differently and that these powers should be given to them. If under Clause 1 you have to go to the Commission, it is not at all certain that the Commission might not be inclined to take the. view of the Government instead of that of the corporation. I really cannot see why the two years should not be accepted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barnes) will consent to three years instead of two, but I think that some more or less moderate period ought to be inserted.
Mr. D. WHITEI can assure the Solicitor-General that the words quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) were certainly taken as a pledge, and I should be inclined to read them in that way. The matter is certainly considered to be of some importance by the Corporation of Glasgow, and doubtless by other persons as well. If the Solicitor-General thinks that two years is too short I would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Currie) that the words might be "three years or upwards."
§ Mr. CURRIEI quite agree.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "two," and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
§ Sir G. CAVEWith this alteration I think I must accept the Amendment. I admit that what I said is ambiguous, and if it has been understood in the sense in which hon. Members state that they understood it, I desire to act up to it if possible. If the House agrees to the three years I will accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
§ Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2): Leave out the word "land" ["shall authorise the acquisition of any land"] and insert instead thereof the 1240 words "such land as aforesaid." Leave out the words "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," and insert instead thereof the words "such land." After the word "body" ["such authority, company, corporation, or body "] add the words "as aforesaid."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.)I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the words:
"Nothing in this Act shall alter, vary, or prejudice any agreement or undertaking made or given by or on behalf of any Government Department with respect to any land or any interest therein possession of which has been taken for purposes connected with the present War."
I had put this down as a new Clause, but Mr. Speaker ruled that it ought to be moved as an Amendment to this. Clause. Some provision of the kind is necessary, because a good many agreements were made with Government Departments in connection with land which they have occupied. I would illustrate the necessity for some such Clause by giving an actual example of what has taken place. The Office of Works, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions, entered into negotiations with the London County Council with a view to the erection of a projectile factory on one of the council's open spaces. Terms for the occupation were arrived at between the council's valuer and the Office of Works. Those terms were embodied in correspondence, but were not committed to any formal agreement. I cannot see that there is any provision in this saving Clause for preserving that agreement or agreements of that kind. It is provided in Sub-section (3):
"Where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period."
There is no saving Clause that I can see in regard to any other term except that of the extension of the period. I hope the Government will either accept this Amendment or make it clear that arrangements which the Government Depart- 1241 ments have arrived at shall hold good, and that they will not be set to naught by this Bill.
§ Mr. CURRIEI beg to support the Amendment, and in further argument in the same direction I should like to submit that the Edinburgh and District Water Trustees are advised that unless this Amendment is adopted their position is not very secure. As the Lord Advocate knows, the Edinburgh and District Water Trust is the owner of several reservoirs. They are acting purely as representing the ratepayers. They are advised that they have sundry agreements affecting their property which stand in some danger.
§ Sir G. CAVEIt is very desirable, before one can judge of such a case as the hon. Member has just put, to know what kind of agreements they are. In my view, all the agreements which are material are saved by Sub-section (3) of Clause 12 of the Bill:
"Provided that where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in the Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period."
That, of course, is necessary. It might be held that an agreement to give up possession would be overridden, but I know of no other agreement which could be overridden by the terms of the Act, and certainly there is no desire to repudiate any agreement at all. The case put by the hon. Member (Mr. Harris), as I understood it, would not be touched by the Act at all. As to the other agreement, I know nothing about it, and I should doubt whether it is affected by the Act. On the other hand, these words are very wide, and might operate in favour of the Government in a way which is not intended, since the House has given the right of pre-emption to the adjoining owner. That would deprive us of rights which, of course, we shall not insist upon as far as we are concerned, but the effect of the Amendment might be to set them up again. I hope hon. Members will be content with the assurance that the Government desires in every respect to adhere to its agreements.
§ Mr. HARRISOn that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.