HL Deb 02 August 1906 vol 162 cc1306-17

Commons Amendments to Lords' Amendments, and Commons reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to order).

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Perhaps it may be convenient that I should say a few words as to the position in which we find ourselves with regard to these Amendments. I would, in the first place, remind the House that this Bill passed through Committee with an amount of cordial support which Irish measures do not always receive. There was a general desire, not only that it should become law, but that it should become law as soon as possible and that the undoubted advantages which it confers upon the labourers of Ireland should be placed within their reach with as little delay as possible. Your Lordships inserted a considerable number of Amendments in the Bill, some of them Amendments of a very material importance, which I venture to think greatly improved the measure. There now remain three Amendments, with regard to which there is a difference of opinion. Perhaps I may call your Lordships' attention to those three Amendments. In the first place your Lordships struck out Section 4 of the Bill, under which the period of one month was substituted for a period of fourteen days, as that within which answers might be given to notices. The House of Commons has rejected that Amendment, has re-inserted Clause 4, and has substituted twenty-one days for the period of one month which your Lordships desire to have in the Bill. Then, my Lords, there are two other Amendments on page 7 and in Clause 11 of the Bill. Your Lordships in the first place struck out Sub-section (9), which enacted that in determining the amount of compensation payable to any person the arbitrator should not make any additional allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory, and further on, in the same clause, your Lordships added to Subsection (11) words which empowered the Court to decide whether the amount of costs which are limited by the Subsection to £10, should not, in certain cases, be exceeded. With regard to those three Amendments I would venture to express an opinion. The first Amendment—that which substitutes twenty-one days for a month—is not really a very material matter, and your Lordships need not think it necessary to insist upon your Amendment. The other two Amendments are, to my mind, of a much more serious nature, not only on account of their intrinsic importance, but because the objection of the House of Commons raises the important question of privilege, a question which has often been debated in this House. As to the value of those two Amendments I would only say that I am advised on very high authority that the first— that which precludes the arbitrator from making any additional allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory— really has very little effect and leaves the law very much where it is at present. The other Amendment—that which limits the cost in every case to £10—seems to me, I must say, to involve a very considerable hardship. I have been assured by many noble Lords with practical knowledge of the subject that there would be frequent cases where the payment of £10 would not be sufficient to cover the costs and where very great hardship might be placed upon the person who thus found himself compelled to accept the sum of £10 in satisfaction of a demand which might reasonably be fixed at a much higher point. The real importance of this Amendment lies in the fact that it raises the question of the privileges of the House of Commons. I think I correctly represent your Lordships' feeling when I say that this House has always wished to respect the privileges of the House of Commons in regard to financial legislation. But the precise limits within which we might or might not interfere with such legislation have, as far as I am aware, never been strictly defined and this House has been careful on more than one occasion to make it clear that we do not accept what I may call the extreme interpretation of the House of Commons claim. We have never admitted that we were precluded from legislating upon questions of principle merely because of the application of those principles involved indirectly or remotely a charge upon the rates. I need not point out to the House that if that doctrine were to be accepted in its extreme form, your Lordships would be absolutely precluded from dealing with a great part of the most important legislation which comes before you. It would have been really at many points a paralysis of the powers of this House. Each House, however, has been tenacious of its own view, and the matter is one about which no doubt a very acute controversy might conceivably arise. I should greatly regret that such a controversy should arise in reference to this Bill, which hitherto has been conducted in the most amicable and considerate manner. There is also this to be said, that if such a controversy were to be initiated it would involve postponement of the further consideration of the measure until much later in the year and thereby retard the moment when it can come into operation. In these circumstances it seemed to us that the case was one where, if possible, a reasonable settlement was desirable, and we have to propose to your Lordships what we believe to be such a settlement. It is as follows: In regard to the first Amendment, as I have already said, we do not propose to raise any objection. We do not insist upon our Amendment. In regard to the Amendment dealing with the question of cost we propose not to insist upon it, but we suggest a form of words which I understand from the noble Earl opposite will probably be acceptable. The words runs thus— Provided, where the Court is satisfied in any particular ease that, owing to the difficulty of showing title, the cost properly or necessarily incurred in respect to such payment amounted to a larger sum, the limit of £10 may be exceeded. Those words have the same effect as the Amendment of Lord Donoughmore which your Lordships carried, and I suggest if those words are agreed to that your Lordships may accept them in lieu of the Amendment of Lord Donoughmore. I suggest that we do not insist on our other Amendment relating to the question of compensation in cases of compulsory purchase, but I am extremely anxious that your Lordships should not be held to do anything involving a surrender of your right to legislate upon such questions as these and it seems to me that the best mode of guarding this House against the use of this case as a precedent which might after be cited with the object of restricting the powers of your Lordships' House would be that we should agree to place upon our journal some such Resolution as that which I now propose to read to your Lordships. It might run thus— That this House, although not insisting on its Amendments in page 7, to which the Commons have disagreed, maintains its right to legislate with regard to the principles of valuation upon which property may be taken for public purposes. I think if that Resolution is agreed to by your Lordships and remains upon our journal it will render it impossible for anyone to contend that in regard to this particular episode we have accepted any other view of the rights of this House than that which I have endeavoured to express to your Lordships.

*LORD CLONBROCK

said that he wanted, with the permission of the House and as the mover of the Resolution, to say a few words on the subject. When he moved his Resolution, by which Sub-section (9) was thrown out, which sub-section the House of Commons now proposed to re-insert, he had not the slightest idea that it could be construed into a breach of privilege. Nor, he was sure, had His Majesty's Government any such idea, otherwise the objection would have been raised at the time. He had raised the question on the Second Reading of the Bill, but neither he nor other noble Lords, when they took exception to the principle of the sub-section—that the arbitrator should be prohibited from taking compulsion into account—knew that there would be any difficulty in the sense of a question of privilege being raised, or that there would be any difficulty in moving an Amendment on the subject. If they had known this it was most probable they would have assumed a different attitude on the Second Reading. He spoke with the utmost diffidence on the question of privilege. An objection was made that the Amendment imposed an additional charge on the ratepayer. It did not necessarily do anything of the kind; all it did was to leave the arbitrator unfettered as to whether he would consider compensation or not. It might be argued that any Amendment of any measure dealing with the public service might in some contingency or other impose an additional charge upon the ratepayer or taxpayer, and if that principle were accepted the legislative power of their Lordships' House would be narrowed in a most dangerous manner. He was glad, therefore, that the noble Marquess did not accept the principle that privilege was involved in this matter. The question, however, would naturally arise in the mind of anyone who had followed what had occurred in their Lordships' House, that the decision in the matter either turned on the question of privilege or did not. They were assured that it did not turn on a matter of privilege. It was therefore a very remarkable thing and they in Ireland had the right to complain that the House, having expressed its sense of the injustice of the provision by throwing it out on Monday by a large majority, should consent to its re-instatement on Thursday. The matter was not in itself a large one, They objected to the provision, not so much on account of the sum involved as to it being in their minds a dangerous precedent. They still adhered to their objection, but after the decision of the noble Marquess they were naturally powerless to take any further action in the matter. They could only hope hat in any future measure this would not be accepted as a precedent and that any claim they made for fair treatment would receive more consideration than on this occasion.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said the House had determined to reject Sub-clause (9) and they objected most strongly to putting in words that were a restriction on the arbitrator. It was a question for their Lordships to decide whether the Resolution the noble Marquess had suggested really kept the privileges of this House as they were. They felt in Ireland that their privileges had been encroached upon, because if the clause were put back into the Bill the arbitrator was restricted. Their Lordships' decision the other night was given by a majority of fifty-four, and if they were content to reverse it they, the noble Lords from Ireland, would have to bow to that decision. They must, however, remember that the question of compulsion was much more serious to them in Ireland than it was in England. Compulsion was a principle which might be applied to very large measures, but they must bow to the decision of their Lordships' House, and if their Lordships were of opinion that such a protest put on the journals of the House covered the privileges of the House, all he had to say was that he bowed to that decision. He could not utter another word on the subject. They had entered their protest.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am exceedingly sorry the noble Marquess (Lord Ripon) is not able to be in his place. He would have spoken with an authority derived from his unique experience of this House which is infinitely greater than I can lay claim to. I fully endorse what was said by Lord Lansdowne as to the general consideration shown by noble Lords opposite in dealing with the different clauses, and I think they will admit we did not show an unconciliatory spirit. We were able to meet Lord Ash bourne and also the noble Earl who spoke last, on an Amendment of some substance, and I think therefore we showed that we were desirous as far as possible to meet noble Lords in this matter. As regards the different Amendments made by the Commons, I understand, so far as Clause 4 is concerned, that noble Lords opposite agree to the suggestion made by the House of Commons which was the same as that made by my noble friend in the course of the debate in Committee here. I understand the noble Marquess opposite proposes that the Amendment to leave out subsection 9 of Clause 11 should not be insisted upon. I think it right to remind your Lordships that the question of privilege was not raised in another place by the Government but by the Speaker, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland when moving, as it was his duty to move, that that House should disagree with your Lordships' Amendment, explicitly stated that he did so in obedience to the ruling of the Speaker. I think I may be able in some degree to reassure the two noble Lords from Ireland with regard to the Amendment of Clause 4. They have in mind not so much what may happen under the operation of this particular clause as what might happen under some future circumstances in Ireland. They fix their mind, I think, upon the possibility of some general scheme of land purchase to which a similar principle might be applied. I express no opinion whatever as to the probability or possibility of such a scheme, but I do point out explicitly that I do not think that their alarm in this matter is well founded, because the case which has to be provided for here, namely the purchase of small plots of ground by local authorities, is completely different from cases which might arise if there were a general scheme for the purchase of land from landlords by the tenants or by any body existing, or not existing, similar to the Land Commission. If—and I again speak quite hypothetically—any such scheme were to be formed the whole subject of the conditions of purchase would, in my opinion, have to be considered on the then merits of the case. I now pass to the second Amendment in Clause 11, the words of which were read out by the noble Marquess. I merely have to say that those words meet with our entire approval, and we are very glad that the clause should go back to,the other House in that shape. I think, however, I ought to point out that it is more than probable that on its arrival there the clause, in its new form, will be declared by the officers of the House to constitute a breach of privilege. It is always open, however, to the other House to waive what it considers to be a breach of privilege, and, I should hope, there is a very strong probability indeed that having regard to the fact that the clause is sent down in a different form, the House of Commons will agree to waive its privilege and that the clause in that form will form part of the Bill. As regards the general effect of what has occurred, I take it that the House of Commons will retain their opinion that both these clauses constitute a breach of their privileges, and I think it is evident from what fell from the noble Marquess that the majority of your Lordships are of a different opinion. And it is with that view that the words read out by the noble Marquess are intended to be placed on the Journals of the House. We on this side offer no objection to their being so placed, and the matter therefore stands thus. The question between the two Houses will not in any sense have been decided, but each will retain its own opinion as to the existence or non-existence of a breach of privilege in these particular cases, and any discussion on the general question of privilege will by these means be avoided on this occasion. Perhaps I may, in conclusion, be allowed to say that if this happy result is achieved I shall be exceedingly glad both because it would be a great regret if the two Houses were to come into collision on this matter, and also on the ground if this particular measure were to be sacrificed to a difference of opinion between the two Houses there would he acute disappointment in Ireland, where it has been looked forward to with the greatest satisfaction during the last few months.

The EARL of DUNRAVEN

hoped the solution would be considered a satisfactory one. After all, they had to remember that the Bill had been amended in the most important of all matters, that of securing judicial appeal, and that that Amendment had not been objected to. The other Amendments as regarded the option of an arbitrator to add something to his award in the case of land being taken compulsorily, so far as it affected this particular Bill, was not really of very great importance. He thought they might feel satisfied that in not insisting upon their Amendment they were not in any way raising a precedent which might be applied to legislation of a different character. It appeared to him that the words which the noble Marquess suggested were, practically speaking, with a very little alteration, carrying out the third Amendment which the House of Commons had objected to, and he thought their Lordships would be well advised to be perfectly satisfied. He did not think it was at all necessary for him or for anyone else on the present occasion to go into the question as to whether the Amendments involved any possible abuse of privilege. It passed his wit as an ordinary layman how the Amendments of their Lordships could by any possibility necessarily add one farthing to the rates, seeing they were merely giving an option to an arbitrator to add something for compulsion which he was not obliged to exercise, and which even if he did exercise need not of necessity add in any way to the rates. For, although the money was allocated under the Bill to acquire land and build cottages, there was nothing in the measure to say what land should be acquired. The arbitrator might limit the land to be acquired, and in that way his award need not add to the rates.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said he hoped nothing he said would renew any possible controversy. The Motion of the noble Marquess, in his opinion, ought to be passed unanimously. The House was face to face with a much larger extension of the claim of privilege than he had ever seen in his experience. He could, however, comfort his friends from Ireland by saying that he did not think the Amendments were of much importance one way or the other. He had been an arbitrator and no arbitrator need disclose whether he had added 10 per cent, for compulsion to his calculations. All that he had to do was simply to pitch his calculations a little bit higher. Providing they had a competent and honest arbitrator he did not think it mattered whether the words were in the section or not. He should not have risen at all if it had not been for one remark which fell from the President of the Council in his conciliatory speech. He said it was not the Government which raised the question of privilege. Of course it was not; that was not the way these things were done. The question of privilege was always raised in one particular way by the officers, who very properly took the opinion of the supreme authority in the other House. The point for them was not the source from which the question arose, but the fact that it had been raised and decided in this particular way. He would give them an illustration of what this might cover. If the other House were to pass a Bill saying that part of a house or property should be taken for public health purposes and their Lordships were to put in the clause an Amendment that they were not to take the half but the whole, then that would in just the same sense as the words of the Amendments to the present Bill be an addition to the responsibilities and rating of the local authority. And that was a thing that had been done scores of times.

It was absolutely impossible to overrate the importance of the principle which was now being raised for the first time, and he was sincerely glad that the noble Marquess proposed to put on the Journal of the House words with the avowed purpose of declaring that they at any rate did not admit that wide interpretation of the question of privilege. He had, in saying that, carefully avoided one single word of censure or reproach upon anyone who was not amenable to this House. The noble Marquess, the late Lord Salisbury, on these matters always used to say that each House was the guardian and judge of its own privileges. They had been enabled by the promptitude of the noble Marquess and by the conciliatory spirit in which he had been met by the President of the Council to avoid any discussion on the merits of the question on this occasion. He was very glad it had been settled in that way, and he cordially agreed that if this were allowed and admitted by their Lordships it would be a most dangerous admission so far as their privileges were concerned.

Moved, That the omission of Clause 4 with which the Commons have disagreed be not insisted on and that Amendments made by the Commons to the said Clause be agreed to.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, That Amendment on page 7 to Clause 11, in line 30, to which Commons have disagreed be not insisted on. —(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, That Amendment to Clause 11 page 7, in line 41, to which the Commons have disagreed, be not insisted on, but that in lieu thereof the following Amendment be agreed to: "Provided where the Court is satisfied in any particular case, that owing to the difficulty of showing title, the cost properly and necessarily incurred in respect of such payment amounted to larger sum, the limit of £10 may be exceeded."—-(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, That the following Resolution be placed upon the Journals of this House:—"That this House, although not insisting in its Amendments in page 7, to which the Commons have disagreed, maintains its right to legislate with regard to the principles of valuation upon which property may be taken for public purposes."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

On Question, agreed to, and ordered to be entered on the Journals.

Bill returned to the Commons, with the Amendment.