HC Deb 02 December 1919 vol 122 cc322-5

  1. (1) For the purpose of the compulsory acquisition of land under the foregoing provisions of this Act, the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect.
  2. (2) Where an Order for the compulsory ac quisition of land has been duly made under the provisions of this Act, then at any time after a notice to treat has been served the Board may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to each owner, lessee, and occupier of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the notice, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent or compliance with Sections eighty-three to eighty-eight of the Lauds Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, but subject to the payment of the like compensation for the land of which possession is taken and interest on the compensation awarded as would have been payable if those provisions had been complied with.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert (2) No Order for the Compulsory acquisition of land to be made under the provisions of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which at the date of the Order forms part of any Park, or of any home farm attached to and Usually occupied with a mansion house if the Land is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house, or of any land which at, that dote forms part of any garden or pleasure ground, or which is woodland not wholly Sur-rounded by or adjacent to land acquired by the Board under this Act. There is no intention, of course, to introduce a Clause to prevent the Board buying a whole estate, but it is desirable as in the English Act that there Should be a limitation, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give the an assurance on the point. I move the Amendment in order to ask how the matter stands.

Sir J. HOPE

I beg to second the Amendment. It is drafted with the object of putting the law in Scotland in precisely the same condition as time law in England. Under the original English Act of 1908 there were considerably more limitations on the acquirement of land, and these were amended by Section 16 of the Land Settlement Facilities Act of this year, limiting the exceptions. The object of this Amendment is to put Scotland exactly in the same position as England. It does not in any way prevent the purchase of a whole estate. No one objects to that, but one does object to the purchase of a part, say the home farm, which is necessary for the amenity and convenience of the estate.

Mr. CLYDE

It will be recollected that this particular Amendment relates to the proceedings under Part I. of the Bill. Under that part of the Bill the power of interference with land can only be exercised through the medium of purchase, and it may be compulsory purchase. If it be voluntary purchase, of course all difficulty disappears. If it be compulsory purchase, then it can only be under the terms which are provided partly in the Acquisition of Land Act and with regard to the remainder in the Land Clauses Acts. If, therefore, the Board of Agriculture were to select for purchase a piece of an estate which affected, let us say, the mansion house or the amenity of the estate, and did not take the whole of the estate, they would have to pay full compensation for it without qualification. I should imagine it would be under 'very extraordinary circumstances that the Board of Agriculture would dream -of making the purchase on the most costly and wasteful terms, which, of course, they would do if they took the park and left the mansion, or if they interfered with the home farm and deprived the mansion house of that advantage. But we do not think it necessary to imitate the provisions in the English Act about this matter. We think it far better to leave to the Board of Agriculture complete power to buy the whole or any part of an estate, provided that in both cases they are saddled with the obligation of paying full compensation for all they take and for any damage they do. If any consequential damage were done by way of settlement, or of injury to the rest of the estate, they would be required to pay compensation in the same way as a railway company, the only difference being that under the Acquisition of Lands Act there are not the old Land Clauses Arbitration Courts. lint there would be complete right of compensation for any injury done. In these circumstances we do not see the slightest need for restricting the powers of the Board.

Sir G. YOUNGER

But is the Land Court bound to assess that compensation under the terms of the Lands Clauses Act? My impression is that it is not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Order, order !

Sir G. YOUNGER

I am exercising my right of reply.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I did not understand that the, hon. Baronet was exercising his right of reply. He was, as I thought, asking question.

Sir G. YOUNGER

At my rate. I have exhausted my right Low, and I cannot speak again.

Mr. CLYDE

The question can be answered in the shortest possible way. If the hon. Baronet will be good enough to look at Sub-section (2) of the First Schedule of the Bill he will see that orders for compulsory acquisition will -incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts (except the provisions thereof relating to the sale of superfluous land) and Sections 70 to 78 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, dealing with minerals and mineral rights.

Sir D. MACLEAN

On the point of Order which was raised just now. Of course, the Rules are rather difficult to follow, but if my recollection serves me right the new Rules do give power to the Mover of any Amendment, or of a new Clause, on Report to speak as often as he can catch the eye of the Chair in regard to the particular Amendments or Motion before the House at the time. There is a good deal of misapprehension on this, and, perhaps you will riot mind informing us what the exact position is?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is correct that the Mover of an Amendment, on the Report stage, can speak more than once.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I thought I had only the right of reply.

Sir D. MACLEAN

That is altered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

This applies only to the Mover and not to the Seconder.

Sir D. MACLEAN

And also, if my recollection serves me right, it applies to the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is the general practice.

Sir D. MACLEAN

But it is specifically stated as a right under tie new Standing Order. I took a considerable part in the Debate on this in the early part of the Session, and I remember, in view of the limitations which were placed on debate on the Report stage and in view of the power given to the Chair to select Amendments, this right was granted as a concession to the House, namely, that the Mover of a Motion either by way of Amendment or of a now Clause, should have the right as often as he caught the eye of the Chair to speak, and that should also apply to the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Standing Order states that "on the Report stage the rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the Bill or to the Mover of any Amendment or new Clause in respect, of that Amendment or new Clause."

Sir G. YOUNGER

I did rise to put a question, and I believed I was exhausting what I took to be my right of speaking again.

Amendment negatived.