HL Deb 29 June 1900 vol 85 cc50-6

[THIRD READING.]

Bill read 3a (according to Order).

*LORD THRING

In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I shall say but very few words, and I am conscious that they will probably be of very little effect. What I have done is this. I have put in a schedule the contents of eighteen lines of the Bill; in other words, I have fully explained in the schedule the whole of the clauses which are in fact embodied by reference in the Bill. I myself had great difficulty in discovering what the clauses were, and I admit that it was on the authority of one of the officials employed by the noble Lord who kindly aided me by his direction, that I believe that they are accurately described. I admit that I could not make out the elaborate clauses that were referred to. I also admit that what the Chairman of Committees said was correct, that a great many of these clauses ought to have been put in the Bill, but if I had put them in the Bill it would have required the Bill to be entirely recast, and I had no time to do it. What I have done is to endeavour to make what I think is extremely intricate plain, and I hope I have succeeded. With respect to the substance of the Bill, it is this. A county has a right to pass a resolution that it requires to hire land by compulsion. It is has passed this resolution, the resolution is sent to the Local Government Board; the Local Government Board, if no objection is made, may pass it into law—they may make an order, and it becomes law. If an objection is made, then they have to direct a local inquiry, and, according to that local inquiry, they may or may not pass it into law. Therefore, it must be obvious to your Lordships that the proceeding is somewhat drastic. I think it must be obvious that it ought to be plainly put out in the Bill what that procedure is. With respect to the principle of the Bill, I think it is extremely desirable that rifle ranges should be encouraged. I make no objection to the principle of the Bill, although it gives unusual powers, but what I still object to is that the nature of those powers should be concealed under a cloud of words which I, although I think I may claim to be somewhat of an authority in the matter of referential clauses, was perfectly unable to unfold.

Amendment moved— In Clause 3, page 2, line 5, to leave out from 'and the' to the end of the clause, and insert 'and for the purpose of carrying such resolution into effect the provisions contained in the schedule hereto shall apply as they were enacted in the body of this Act.'"—(The Lord Thring.)

*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

It will, perhaps, save the time of your Lordships if I immediately follow my noble friend and explain my own position. I am not qualified to form any opinion as, to whether the schedule which the noble Lord has introduced is a proper and correct interpretation of the law, but what I do want to call your Lordships' attention to is this, that under this Bill land can be compulsorily taken from any owner on the initiation of the county council and hired compulsorily for thirty-five years. Now, my Lord, as most of the land in the neighbourhood of London which is desirable for building purposes is high land, and naturally the land which is hired, great injustice might be done when the land is taken, and after such land had been taken such land became useful for building operations. Let us see what the effect of the Bill as it now stands would be. A council could compel an owner to lease his land for thirty-five years. That owner at the time might not be able to show in any definite and distinct way that such land could be used for building purposes. Who would have been able to foresee the enormous development of Working, Guildford, and other towns near London, or, indeed, near any other large centres of population in the provinces? What I think would meet the exigencies of the case would be if your lordships are prepared to accept the principle of compulsory hiring—which I do not discuss now, but having accepted that, then provide that such an owner should have the power in the same way as is given under the Act of 1894, which is referred to in this Act, to resume possession of his land where such land came in for building purposes. The owner has now that power where such land can be used, for mining purposes. It must also be borne in mind that such resumption would not be arbitrarily or vexatiously undertaken, because first, he would have to satisfy the Local Government Board, and. secondly, he would have to pay such compensation as the Local Government Board might determine—first of all as the Council and he might agree, or failing agreement, as an arbitrator might direct. All it seems to me that I am asking for—and I am sure it is a point that is of the greatest importance—is that an owner should not have his land taken away from him and perhaps the value of his property enormously deteriorated by being unable to part with his land for thirty-five years without any power to resume it again under totally different circumstances.

LORD THRING

I ought to have explained to your Lordships that there were two exceptions that had been added to this clause; first, that a person injuriously affected as well as the person interested in the land should be able to appear; and, secondly, there is a clause that the landlord might resume the land if he wanted it for building purposes in the same way as he might under the incorporated clause resume it for mining.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

I regret the trouble to which the House and my noble friend have been put owing to this clause. I can assure him that far from desiring to offer obstinate resistance to his proposal I should have been very glad indeed to meet him and to accept his schedule if I could have been convinced that that schedule correctly represented the law as it stands without any material alteration of language. But, my Lords, I have only to-day received from the Local Government Board, which Department I need not say is largely concerned in the administration of these Acts, a memorandum which I will not attempt to read to the House, but which goes to show that the schedule of the noble Lord is not one which could be safely added to the Bill. The Department has sent mo a proof of the noble Lord's schedule annotated in blue ink with the Amendments which would be necessary in order to effect the minimum of alteration to bring it into conformity with established practice, and those Amendments are extremely numerous. The memorandum goes on to say that the schedule contains a number of passages which import a wider meaning than the words of the existing law have been given; the omissions are enumerated; the fourteenth section is described as being certainly an incomplete version of Section 1 of the incorporated Act, and in conclusion I am advised that the schedule cannot at present be regarded as a workable substitute for Clause 3 of the Bill. My Lords, I am afraid that in the face of that strong expression of expert opinion I cannot possibly accept the schedule of my noble friend, but I cannot help thinking that my noble friend, and perhaps some other Members of the House, have altogether over-estimated the danger to which owners of land will be exposed under the provisions of this Bill. It is not the case that the passing of this Bill will enable persons to come forward in the guise of those free selectors of whom we heard earlier in the evening to place rifle ranges in the middle of a private estate. The noble Earl told the House that this, Bill would put it absolutely into the hands of County Councils to deal with this question.

*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

What I said was that the County Council could hire land compulsorily from the landlord, and he would have no power to resume for building purposes such as he would have now in the case of minerals.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Quite so, but the matter does not rest, as the noble Earl supposes, with the County Council. This is what happens. The parish council has to move first. The parish council has first to try to hire by agreement. If the parish council fails to hire by agreement it may represent the case to the County Council, then the County Council go to the Standing Committee for allotments, and after that a public inquiry is held in the parish.

LORD THRING

May I interrupt the noble Marquess? The parish council have nothing on earth to do with it.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am reciting the procedure followed in the case of the compulsory hiring of allotments.

LORD THRING

I was misled in exactly the same way, but I can assure the noble Marquess that tinder the Bill the parish council has nothing on earth to do with the matter.

*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

The County Council certainly has.

LORD THRING

Yes, but not the parish council; that is one of the very traps that I myself fell into.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Let us begin then with the County Council. The County Council holds a public inquiry; then there is an opportunity to any person interested to memorialise. The Order is deposited with the Local Government Board, and if a memorial has been presented and not withdrawn, then the Local Government Board in its turn proceeds to hold a local inquiry, after which the Order may be confirmed. So that really the rights of the private owner are hedged in by a whole series of inquiries, inquiries which must take considerable time, during which any person aggrieved will have ample opportunity of stating his grievances. I cannot, I am afraid, after the warning I have received, accept this Amendment, but the Bill of course has to pass through the other House of Parliament, and I have no doubt that before it becomes law the point which my noble friend has raised will be considered and properly discussed.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

I am not surprised to hear that my noble friend behind me (the Marquess of Lansdowne) after the report he has received from the Local Government Board feels himself unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. I somewhat regret it, because, even if it did not actually follow the present procedure with regard to allotments, I should have preferred to see some procedure laid down in the Bill which would make it clear to everyone what was intended. In

It appearing that thirty Lords were not present, the Lord Chancellor declared the question not decided. Further debate on the said Amendment adjourned to Monday next.

this case the parish council has nothing whatever to do with the matter at all. It is the council of the borough or the council of the county. They make their own inquiries, and as the noble Lord said there is an appeal to the Local Government Board, but only one appeal. The question of compulsory hiring is an entirely new principle, except with regard to allotments, and compulsory hiring for a rifle range is a very different thing to hiring a few acres for an allotment. It extends over a much larger area, and, therefore, I think it should be carefully guarded. The question of injuriously affecting is one that ought to be carefully considered in allowing this compulsory hiring for rifle ranges. Then with regard to what my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth said as to the land possibly becoming available for building purposes, I think that also requires some consideration. The point is not whether building is going on at the present time; it is whether in the course of the thirty-five years land which was when the hiring commenced possibly waste land, becomes within that time a large building area. Such a contingency is quite possible, and I think there should be some provision, with careful restrictions, to enable the land to be resumed if it is required for building, in the same way that it can be resumed now if minerals are under it. I venture to call the noble Marquess's attention to those two questions, which I think are deserving of his consideration.

On Question, whether to agree to the said Amendment, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 2; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.
Portsmouth, E. [Teller.] Thring, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] James, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Frankfort de Montmorency, V. Lawrence, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Churchill, L. [Teller.] Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Lansdowne, M. Heneage, L.