(NO. 18.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 26 February 1878)

§ Lord KINNAIRD
objected to the Proviso at the end of the clause requiring that the surplus land should, before being offered for public sale or let for building purposes, be offered to the person entitled to the lands from which it was originally severed. He thought this Proviso unduly hampered the action of local authorities, and moved the omission of the words "surplus land for building purposes," prohibiting them from letting until they should have first been offered to the person entitled to pre-emption.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he failed to appreciate the reasons of the noble Lord for desiring this alteration in the clause. The noble Lord himself moved the second reading of the Bill, and, in doing so, stated that it had passed through the other House of Parliament with the assent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department—such assent being given with the condition that a Proviso precisely the same as that now objected to should be inserted; and this clause, as the Bill was introduced into the other House, was without this Proviso which the noble Lord now proposed to omit. The Proviso was drawn either at the instance of the Home Secretary or at the instance of the Lord Advocate, or probably of both. It was adopted in the form in which it now stood, and in that form it was set forth in the Bill when the noble Lord moved the second reading. Therefore, he felt bound to meet the Amendment with the most de- 370 cided objection, this Proviso being the very condition upon which the Home Secretary assented to the measure. If the noble Lord's proposal were adopted, the clause would stand in a form which would authorize local authorities in Scotland, in towns with which they were concerned, to take a very much larger portion of ground than they required for the Parks and places of public recreation; and, having taken a more extensive area then they required, they then might, in order to recoup themselves, let out the surplus for building purposes. It was to meet cases of that kind that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary required that this Proviso should be inserted; and, unless he was misinformed, the Proviso as it now stood was placed there by those who had charge of the Bill in the other House. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.

§ Lord KINNAIRD
said, his only reason for desiring the omission of the words was to strengthen the purpose of the Bill, and especially of this clause. He had no objection, however, to withdraw his Amendment.

§ LORD KINNAIRD
moved the omission of Sub-section 7, which declared that every Act confirming any such Provisional Order should be deemed to be a general Public Act.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, the same provision was included in every Act of the kind, and he thought the words most reasonable and necessary in the present instance.

§ LORD KINNAIRD
moved, after the word "value," to add "without any additional allowance in respect of the compulsory purchase thereof." There was, he said, an ambiguity about the 371 clause as it now stood, which would probably lead to misapprehensions, and possibly admit of exorbitant claims being made, and his object was to guard against this eventuality.

The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he did not think there was any ambiguity in the clause as it now stood; but if the Amendment found favour with the House—as he was certain it would not—a very serious point would be raised. The provision was practically the same as was found to exist in similar Acts, and if local authorities were to exercise these compulsory powers and take land where they required it in the neighbourhood of towns, they ought to pay for it the highest sum that the owner could obtain, and that they could in fairness be called upon to pay, because they took that which they desired by compulsion. The noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, seemed to have in view the provisions of the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act. But taking land by compulsion for the amusement and recreation of persons living in its neighbourhood was very different from taking it by compulsion under the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act—for, in the latter case, houses were cleared away because they were fever dens which ought to be got rid of. The one measure applied to a state of things essentially different from that contemplated by the other, and therefore the words proposed to be inserted were not admissible.

§ LORD KINNAIRD
withdrew the Amendment.