MANAGEMENT, ETC. OF LAND HELD BY THE AUTHORITY (Hansard, 13 October 1975)

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 14, line 36, 1012 leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 37 and insert: 'Every local authority in Wales'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 238 and Amendment No. 61, in line 36, leave out 'and every officer of a local authority'.

§ Mr. Silkin
Amendment No. 60 is proposed to meet points made by the Opposition in Committee. The duty on officers to supply information was criticised and an undertaking was given that the matter would be considered. The intention behind the original wording was to cover the case where a local authority refused to supply information and there was no sanction which could be brought to ensure that it did supply the information.
The Opposition felt that this was unnecessary and perhaps even rather an uncomfortable way of proceeding. We have looked at the matter again and I am happy to say that we have found that it is unnecessary to proceed on the original basis. Therefore, we hope that this amendment will receive the full agreement of this House.

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
Amendment No. 60 meets the wishes of the Opposition as expressed in Amendment No. 61. Therefore, I shall not proceed with that amendment.

§ Mr. Alec Jones
I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 15 leave out lines 1 to 6.
This is an example of an occasion on which my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken advantage of the Committee stage, have listened to the arguments and have then produced amendments which I believe in this case will meet with the approval of the Government and the Opposition.
During the 11th Sitting of the Committee it was argued that the subsection which we are proposing to delete would prevent an action being brought against the Land Authority or an agent local authority on grounds of ultra vires in any circumstances. An assurance was given in Committee that the matter would be looked at again.
I have to report that we looked at the matter again, and the legal advice is that 1013 even without subsection (9) the Bill does not prevent an action for damages in respect of nuisance or negligence being brought against the Land Authority or an agent local authority. The authority in question could not plead the defence of statutory authority unless the action complained of was carried out in pursuance of a statutory duty.
All the powers granted by Clause 16 are, in fact, discretionary rather than mandatory, so it is not now considered that the Land Authority or a local authority could possibly plead statutory authority as a defence to actions for nuisance or negligence. It is now considered, therefore, that the subsection can be omitted from the Clause, and the amendment provides for its deletion as requested by the Opposition in Committee.

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
I am not sure that we pressed in Committee for total deletion of the subsection. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) about this amendment, and I think that it was his suggestion in Committee that subsection (9) should end at the word "person" in line 4, because the first words of the subsection appear to give power to an individual to bring an action against the Land Authority or a local authority, whereas the latter part seems to give power to the authorities concerned perhaps to act ultra vires.
It was our view that the Government might have deleted the last two lines and the remainder of line 4 after the word "person". However, they have deleted the whole subsection, and perhaps one can best sum the matter up by saying that they have given us part of what we wanted but not all of it.