CLAUSE 15. —(Power of occupier or owner to execute works.) (Hansard, 10 July 1939)

§ Sir J. Anderson
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is little more than drafting, but I think I had better explain the purpose that it is designed to secure. As the Clause stood before the Amendment, it was open possibly to some doubt whether the powers given to an owner to execute works might not extend to the 1951 carrying out of works on property in his occupation which was not really part of the property in question. That is to say, if a person had an estate extending to two adjacent premises it might have been argued, as the Clause stood, that the owner could enter upon the neighbouring premises for the purpose of providing shelter there for persons working in the other premises. The insertion of the words "appurtenant to the mine or building" is designed to make it perfectly clear that the works in question must be carried out —to use a simple term which is not open to misapprehension —within the same curtilage.

§ Dr. Haden Guest
It does not seem to be quite clear what the effect of this change of words will be in the case of premises in which it is desired to make an entrance to an air-raid shelter on land immediately adjacent to the premises but not belonging to the premises or, to use the words of the Amendment "appurtenant" to the premises. The Amendment takes out the word "adjacent" to the mine or building, and puts in the word "appurtenant" to the mine or building. What is to be the position in regard to a particular building which is adjacent to the place or land, or whatever it may be, which is not within the ownership of the individual but which it is necessary to use in order to get an entrance to an air-raid shelter or to get an exit? It seems to me that in such a case there would be a difficulty in the matter and that if the word "adjacent" had been left in it would permit the entrance to be made, whereas if the word "appurtenant" is put in it would seem to limit the right of the usage of the land and would, therefore, create a difficulty which I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman is going to get over.

§ Sir J. Anderson
If I have correctly understood the point I would suggest that the consideration to which the hon. Member has called attention does not really arise in connection with this case. In the Clause as originally drawn that power of the owner only came into existence in respect of land to which his estate or interest extended. It therefore gave him no power to carry out works or to provide exits except on land over which 1952 he had an estate or interest. The consequence of the Amendment is to limit that power to a certain extent so that an owner shall only be entitled to carry out works within the premises or land belonging to the premises in respect of which shelter is to be provided.

§ Mr. Gallacher
The Minister has explained that in some cases it may not be possible or convenient to provide the necessary shelter, and that shelter would have to be provided apart from the undertaking itself. How would the Amendment apply in the case where shelter is provided apart from the undertaking?

§ Sir J. Anderson
I do not think the Amendment affects that case at all. It is designed to meet a case, which will occur only very rarely and more or less by accident. You have a commercial building with a certain amount of land attached to it; the building and the land are the property of the same person. As the Clause stood that person could carry out work either within the building or on the land. The whole purpose of the Clause was to ensure that the owner should have the power to carry out such works. It might happen in exceptional cases that the same person owns two buildings with land adjacent to each, the blocks being contiguous, and it might be argued that the Clause as it left the House said that the owner would be entitled for the purpose of providing shelter for the occupants of building A to go to building B, and on the land pertaining to building B to provide shelter for persons occupying building A, perhaps to the serious detriment of the interests of the people ocupying building B. The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that the two cases shall be kept quite separate, and that the accident that the two blocks of buildings with the land adjacent in each case are in the possession of the same owner shall not be allowed to affect theposition. I think it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment which carries out the original intention of the Clause, and I hope I have succeeded in making the matter clear.