OPEN SPACES BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1906)

THE EARL OF MEATH
pointed out that the purpose of the Bill was to consolidate the enactments relating to open spaces. Among those Acts was the Local Government Act, 1888, in Clause 1 of which the words "administrative county" were used, and in Clause 31 of which was to be found the expression "county boroughs." He thought it must be by an oversight that the words, "administrative," and "county," had been omitted from the present Bill, because in certain counties there were two or more county councils, and if the words were not inserted, those administrative county councils and certain county boroughs might be excluded from the purview of the Act. He therefore moved the Amendment of which he had given notice for the purpose of ensuring that administrative county councils and county boroughs should not be omitted from the Act.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I do not think the Amendment of the noble Earl is at all necessary. The words were suggested some time ago by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, and they have been carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Board as well as by Parliamentary Counsel, and everybody is agreed that the words in the Bill are in proper form and include the councils of administrative counties. The words are really not necessary. There are, in fact, no county councils except the councils of administrative counties. The term used is the usual one; if appears in numerous Acts, and no question has ever been raised as to the words "admintrative," and "county." It is not necessary or even proper to refer separately to county boroughs, because a county borough is a municipal borough.

THE EARL OF MEATH
said he was not a lawyer, and of course accepted the noble Earl's statement that it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to exclude the authorities to which he had referred. On that assurance he would not press the Amendment.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
moved to insert after the word "discharged"the words "either absolutely or if the grant was for a term of years or other limited interest during the continuance of that interest." He said that the Amendment was to provide for a case where an open space was leased to the local authority for a limited period, at the end of which it would revert to the trustees or owners. While the local authority had the open space any special rate levied by the trustees under private Acts was suspended, as the local authority would maintain the open space, but when the local authority's lease came to end the trustee's power to levy a special rate must revive. The Amendment was really in the nature of a drafting Amendment.

THE EARL OF MEATH
said that his object in moving the insertion of the words "or acquisition" was to carry out the purport of the Memorandum attached to the Bill, which stated, inter alia, that the purpose of the measure was to remove inconsistencies Under the Bill as it stood, a county council would be able to give money to support or to contribute to the support of open spaces outside their own area, but they would have 344 no power to assist in the acquisition of such open spaces. That seemed to be a somewhat ridiculous position. It was very desirable, under certain circumstances, that a county council should be able to acquire as well as to support or to contribute to the support of such open spaces. He might instance, as an illustration, county council A, with a thickly populated district, on the borders of county council B, whose area was thinly populated. Supposing it were necessary to provide an open space for the congested district of county council A, and that county council A had no land suitable for the purpose, while just over the border in the area of county council B a very suitable site came into the market. Under the Bill county council A would, not be able to assist in acquiring that open space which would be largely used by its own ratepayers, and county council B would have no stimulus to do so as very few of its ratepayers would, benefit thereby; whereas if county council A was able to offer a substantial sum towards the purchase price the open space would very likely be secured. This was no hypothetical case. Such an instance had occurred within his own knowledge. Largely through steps taken by the organisation with which he was connected it was possible for boroughs to purchase lands outside their own areas; the power had been used with good results, and they desired to see the same power now extended to county councils.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I cannot accept the word '' acquisition "as well as" support.'' The proposal involves a substantial extension of the power given to county councils by existing Acts to contribute to the support of recreation grounds provided by private persons or authorities; it proposes to enable them to find the money for the purchase of such grounds without necessarily having any control over their management. I think my noble friend will see that even if it is desirable in itself, which I do not wish 345 now to argue, it is inadmissible on the ground on which other proposed Amendments have been ruled out of order, namely, that it is beyond the scope of a consolidating measure. I have twice stated that I propose that this measure should be a consolidating measure, and that nothing fresh should be introduced into it.

THE EARL OF MEATH
moved the insertion of the following new paragraph— In the case of the City of London, out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, or out of the consolidated rate of the City. He pointed out that under the Open Spaces Act, 1881, Section 12, the Corporation of the City of London were entitled to defray the expenses of carrying out the Act out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, and if this was a consolidation Bill surely those words ought now to be inserted. The City of London, although one of the authorities to which the measure applied, had no power under the Bill of spending a penny, which, he thought, was a very inconsistent position. If it were said that the metage on grain had practically ceased, he would ask what about the words "or otherwise?" Why should the City of London be excluded from all further power of obtaining open spaces? When one remembered what they had done in the past in this direction it seemed very invidious that the City should be precluded from being able to carry on their beneficent work. The House would be aware of the splendid work of the City of London in the purchase of that, perhaps, finest of the parks of the world —Epping Forest—of the magnificent beeches at Burnham, and of large parks such as those at Finsbury and Ham, besides numerous other open spaces. This being a consolidating measure, he thought they were entitled to ask that the words of the Act of 1881 should be inserted, and that the City of London 346 should not be treated differently from every other borough in the Metropolis. Every Metropolitan borough council would be able to acquire open spaces; the City of London alone would be excluded.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
I quite agree with everything the noble Earl has said about the good work of the City of London in regard to parks and open spaces, but there is one fatal objection to the Amendment, and that is that it imposes a charge on the rates, and therefore cannot possibly be inserted in the House of Lords. I think that disposes of the Amendment of my noble friend; it is not possible for us to accept it.