HL Deb 02 July 1900 vol 85 cc214-8

Debate on Amendment moved after Third Reading resumed (according to Order).

LORD THRING

With the permission of the House I desire to withdraw my Amendments to Clause 3 of this Bill, and I also wish to say a few words of explanation. The two Amendments in the schedule were important ones—one was to allow persons injuriously affected by the scheme, as well as those actually interested in the land, to appear at the public inquiry; and the other was to allow landlords to obtain resumption of their land when required for building purposes. I hope the noble Marquess will have these Amendments introduced when the Bill is, in the other House. I do not wish to oppose the measure or to imperil it. What I do wish is that what seems to be a new doctrine should meet with the disapprobation of this House—namely, the doctrine that in order to facilitate the passage of a Bill it is desirable that some of the really substantial clauses should be wrapped in a cloud of generalities. I hope also that the House will express its strong disapproval of a new phraseology which has grown up lately in Acts of Parliament which allows a Department to adapt actual enactments to the particular exigencies of the case.

Amendments, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Moved, "That the Bill do pass."

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

I must plead guilty to being somewhat late in the Criticisms which I have made, but I can assure my noble friend the Secretary of State for War that it is not my desire to in anyway arrest the progress of this Bill. I fully realise the enormous importance of obtaining land for rifle ranges, and I recognise that cases may occur in which a recalcitrant landlord may prevent land which is absolutely necessary being acquired. I should like to call my noble friend's attention to the condition in which Clause 3 leaves the House. It is practically taken from the Acts which enable parish councils to apply to county councils for power to hire land for allotments. The compulsory hiring of land is, with the exception of the provision in the Allotments Act, absolutely a new principle in legislation, and I regret that the conditions under which the compulsory hiring of land for rifle ranges is to be allowed are not more clearly expressed in the Bill. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Act of 1894, which are incorporated in the third clause of this Bill, are extremely difficult to understand. In fact, if I may venture to say so, they are extremely bad clauses, and I would suggest to my noble friend that when the Bill is in the House of Commons an attempt should be made to remodel the clause Allotments and rifle ranges are very different in character. It is a very different thing to give a parish council or a borough council power to hire compulsorily a few acres of land for allotments, and to give public bodies power to hire a very largo extent of country for rifle ranges. There are, therefore, in the clauses which are incorporated, several provisions wholly inapplicable to rifle ranges, and at the same time there are omissions which, I think, the noble Marquess should give his attention to. The omissions I refer to particularly are those which were brought to the attention of the House by Lord Thring and Lord Portsmouth. In the first place, there is the question of those whose land is not absolutely taken, but who may have land adjoining which may be injuriously affected. This question could hardly arise in the case of allotments. Therefore, I venture to think that, in addition to those whose land is actually taken, those whose interests are likely to be injuriously affected should also have power to be heard by the tribunal before whom the question comes. In the case of hiring for allotments, leases are confined to a maximum of thirty-five years. Allotments do not occupy a very large track of country—a few acres at the outside; but in the case of rifle ranges a very large amount of country may be affected, and it is possible that the land may within thirty-five years become a very valuable building estate. I would ask the House whether it is not fair that, as owners of land hired compulsorily for allotments have power to resume possession in cases where, for instance, minerals are discovered, there should also be a power vested in owners under this Bill to appeal for the resumption of their land on other grounds. I would also suggest that if there is any difficulty in carrying this out the case might be met by the maximum length of the lease being reduced to twenty years. There is one other matter. In the case of allotments, as a rule, the originating local authority is the parish council. When a parish council desires to hire land compulsorily for allotments, the first step is to apply to the county council for leave to do so. The county council institutes a local inquiry and ascertains whether the land has not been obtainable by agreement, and whether the opposition is or is not worthy of consideration. If they think fit they give the necessary powers. From the county council's decision after the inquiry there is a further appeal to the Local Government Board. I should like to point out that the preliminary inquiry is eliminated altogether from this Bill. I would emphasise what has fallen from Lord Thring as to the power given to a Government Department to adapt or in any way alter an Act of Parliament. I do not think that is a power which should be given to any Government Department. I hope that, in the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, clauses will be enacted in the Bill itself which will show those whose land is to be taken exactly what the process is under which it will be taken. That will be much more satisfactory than referring to two clauses in another Act which contain provisions that do not apply to military lands at all, and which omit several precautions which I think in this case ought to be taken.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I hope the noble and learned Lord will not suspect that I complain of his tenacity in this matter. He has given us advice which has been useful, but I am afraid I am in a difficult position, because I have had expert advice from the noble and learned Lord, and I have had other expert advice which does not agree, and therefore I think I am entitled to the sympathy of your Lordships. I am reluctant to accept the schedule proposed by Lord Thring, because there is an objection to including in an Act of Parliament what is in effect an epitome of other Acts of Parliament. I admit that there is a great deal to be said for my noble friend's view that the form in which the Bill has been drawn is unnecessarily obscure. The best proof of that is that it has been understood differently by persons all of whom might have been considered capable of understanding a complicated problem. I am willing to undertake that when this Bill is dealt with elsewhere an attempt shall be made to give effect to the views that have been expressed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees—namely, that instead of having recourse to this power of adaptation we should re-enact mutatis mutandis the clauses in the other Act. I will also undertake that the two specific suggestions that have been made shall be considered—namely, that owners of building land whose land has been taken for the purpose shall have opportunities of exercising the right of resumption under conditions more advantageous to them than those afforded by the Bill as it now stands, and that adjoining owners who may be injuriously affected by the creation of these rifle ranges shall have some means of obtaining compensation. I trust we shall be able to meet the criticisms, which I readily admit are reasonable criticisms, on these points. I hope we shall be allowed to retain compulsory power of hiring in the Bill, because it is immensely important that rifle ranges should be provided, and it would be a great misfortune if it were in the power of some obstinate and unaccommodating person who owned a small fragment of the necessary land to upset the whole scheme.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

thanked the Secretary of State for War for the undertaking he had given that when the Bill was dealt with in the House of Commons the suggestions he (Lord Portsmouth) and Lord Thring had expressed would be considered, and, if possible, given effect to.

LORD HERRIES

I do not think this Bill should be allowed to pass your Lordships' House in its present unsatisfactory form on the chance of its being amended in another place. Why not postpone the Third Reading and have the Bill amended before allowing it to pass?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

I would point out to the noble Lord that the Third Reading, has been put and agreed to. The motion still pending is "That this Bill do pass."

LORD HERRIES

Then I object to the Bill passing, because it is in an unsatisfactory form.

On Question, agreed to; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.