THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Compulsory Purchase Orders.) (Hansard, 7 December 1934)

§ Mr. DINGLE FOOT
I beg to move, in page 14, line 8, to leave out "twenty-one days," and to insert "three months."
The Commissioners under this Bill are given powers with regard to the compulsory purchase of land, and there is a certain procedure prescribed in the notice to be given. Then it is said: If any person aggrieved by an order desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act has not been complied with, he may, within twenty-one days after the publication of the notice of confirmation, make an application for the purpose to the High Court. Apart from that, he is deprived of the right of access to the court. In the next paragraph he is deprived of the right to apply to the courts by reason of prohibition or certiorari or in any legal proceedings whatsoever. That is directly contrary to the statement that was made by the Prime Minister when I asked him whether the Government proposed to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. He said that the recommendations were being borne in mind by the Government in the legislation they introduced from time to time. Here is the first Bill we are asked to deal with since the right. hon. Gentleman gave that reply and the recommendation of the Committee on Ministers' Powers are set aside. The Donoughmore Committee were very 2055 emphatic on this point. On page 65 of their Report they use these words: The use of clauses designed to exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts to enquire into the legality of a regulation or order should be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases, and should not be permitted by Parliament except upon special grounds stated in the Ministerial Memorandum attached to the Bill. We have not had any statement of any special ground existing in this case. The Committee proceed to say: Whenever Parliament determines that it is necessary to take the exceptional course mentioned in the last recommendation and to confer on a Minister the power to make a regulation whose validity is not to be open to challenge in the courts— (a) Parliament should state plainly in the Statute that this is its intention; and —this is the point to which I would direct particular attention— (b) a period of challenge of at least three months and preferably six months should be allowed. Apart from emergency legislation, we doubt if there are any cases where it would he right to forbid challenge absolutely. That statement is clear. The Committee state that in every case there should be a minimum period of three months during which it should be possible to challenge the validity of an order in the courts. In this Bill we are given 21 days. That is worse than what was done in the Agricultural Marketing Act last year. In that case, because of protests from the Liberal benches, the Government gave us 28 days, or one-third of the minimum period recommended by the Donoughmore Committee. Now, they cut the period by another week and only give us 21 days. When cases of this kind are taken to court they are generally matters of considerable perplexity, and 21 days is a very short time for the litigant and those advising him to seek the necessary advice and take a decision as to whether or not they should challenge the validity of the order in the courts.
It is rather remarkable that we should have a Clause of this kind coming so shortly after the Financial Resolution with which the House was asked to deal a few days ago and against which so many hon. Members protested. If you couple the two things together we appear to have somebody at Whitehall—I do not know in what Department or who it is—who 2056 is concerned, first to cut down and gag debate in the House of Commons and, secondly in so far as they dare, to deprive the subject of his right of access to the courts. In this case they do not dare to deprive him altogether of his right of access to the court as they did in the Agricultural Marketing Act last year, but they have given us as short a period as they dare suggest, namely, 21 days. There may be reasons advanced why there should not be any longer period. It may be said that there might be delay if a longer period were given. It may be said that one or two cases would hold up the activities of the Commissioners. That kind of argument can be used in every single case where it is desired to deprive the subject of his right of access to the courts. You can always advance considerations of administrative difficulty. There are some of us who think that considerations of that kind should give way to the ordinary rights of the subject. There is no question of a great deal of legislation because the cases in which someone challenges in the courts the validity of a Ministerial Order are exceedingly rare, but it is a good thing that the power to challenge these Orders should exist. It is the only form of redress the subject has against the misuse or excess of Ministerial powers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet the views not only of Members on these benches but in many parts of the House and give us the minimum period recommended by the Ministers' Powers Committee.

§ Mr. RHYS
I desire, just briefly, to put one point which directly arises out of this subject and that is the question of mortgages in the case of compulsory acquisition of land. Extraordinary powers are placed in the hands of the Minister. The Commissioners have the right to compulsorily acquire land not only inside a depressed area but outside as well, and, therefore, a large number of commercial transactions are to be brought within the purview of the Measure. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has read the Land Clauses Act, 1845, but it is a long Measure of over 100 Sections. I hope, as we cannot debate the subject now, that I shall have an opportunity on Report stage of raising the question of commercial transactions under the Bill, 2057 not with the desire to obstruct the passage of the Measure but simply to obtain justice and equity for those who have entered into these undertakings without any idea that the Government of the day would come in and break them almost with impunity.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to the Amendment. He is being asked to agree to hold up any proposal for three months instead of 21 days. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) has I think been rather over zealous for legal rectitude and has lost sight of the social side of the measure. I know some land which the Commissioners might take over which is such a hideous sight as to entitle any one who claims ownership to three months in gaol, let alone an opportunity for holding up any scheme for three months.

§ Mr. H. JOHNSTONE
Obviously, it is impossible to take the Amendment to a division, because if we did so it would be impossible for the Government to get the Schedule. Speaking on behalf of my hon. Friends on these benches I hope that we shall have an opportunity on Report stage of discussing the matter. and if the Amendment is withdrawn now it is not because my hon. Friend is not prepared to divide the Committee. May I say to the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) that if any trade union property was attacked by these Commissioners it would not be three months but three years which would be wanted for the expensive counsel who would be employed to work up the case.

Mr. STANLEY
If we are to have a fuller discussion at another stage it would be unfair to make any reply now, but I understand that the provision has been in force for many years and that so far there has been no complaint. I realise that if my hon. Friend asks leave to withdraw the Amendment now, that does not in the least mean that he is not prepared at a subsequent stage to raise the matter again.

§ Mr. DINGLE FOOT
In those circumstances and without prejudice to what we may be able to do at a further stage, 2058 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I would be glad to have some information with regard to proviso (a), on page 13, which has not been produced in the original form.

Mr. STANLEY
This proviso is taken from the Public Works (Facilities) Act. It provides that where objection is made and it is found that it is really upon matters which are properly dealt with by the arbitrator and not by public inquiry, it will not be necessary to have a public inquiry and the arbitrator will deal with it.

Miss WARD
May I have a reply to the question that I put to the Minister?

Mr. STANLEY
I think I can say safely that the Lancashire Development Council in the three years that it has been in existence has done extremely valuable work for the county—work which has resulted in bringing new industries to the district—and I hope it will have even greater success in the future.