EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 29 May 1906)

LORD MONKSWELL
, who had given notice to move, as an Amendment, the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 4, viz.:— Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the council may take such part of the lands, houses, and premises shown on Plan No. 6, and distinguished thereon by the Nos. 1 to 21, and of the land, house, and premises shown on Plan No. 8, and distinguished thereon by the No. 2, and described in the schedule to this Act, as they may require, without being required or compellable to purchase the whole or any greater part of any such lands, houses, and premises. The provisions of this section shall be stated in every notice given thereunder by the council to sell and convey any premises, said ho explained the other day the object of his Amendment, and he did not think it necessary to repeat what he had then said or to add anything to it. He was perfectly willing, however, to accept the substituted Amendment which had been put down by the Karl of Camperdown, and he would not, therefore, move his Amendment.

THE EARL OP CAMPERDOWN
expressed his satisfaction that the noble Lord had seen his way to accept his Amendment. Their Lordships would remember that on the last occasion when the Bill was in Committee the Committee stage was postponed in order that they 237 might look into his noble friend's Amendment and see what it meant. He (Lord Camperdown) had the opportunity afterwards of consulting the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees and his Department, and he ascertained that when it was a question of taking parts of a property only there was a model clause—Clause No. 29 in the Railway Lands Orders—dealing with such cases. That was the clause which he now moved should be inserted, and he was very glad that Lord Monkswell had accepted it. The new Clause standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Monkswell, but which the noble Lord had signified his intention of not moving, proposed merely to take parts of the land, and there was no reference in it to the compensation that was to be paid or to the question as to whether it was possible to take part of the land without materially injuring the rest. The model clause of their Lordship's House which ho (Lord Camperdown), proposed to insert provided that the owners might, if certain portions of the land, etc., could, in the opinion of the jury or the arbitrators, be severed from the remainder without material detriment, be required to sell these portions only, the council paying for the portions required by them and making compensation for any damage sustained by the owners thereof by severances or otherwise. The model clause, therefore, provided that the county council were to pay, not merely for the part they took, but also for any damage which might be occasioned by the severance. That seemed to him the obviously fair and proper way of dealing with the matter, and he understood that that was also the view of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.

LORD MONKSWELL
said this might be a model clause, but the sooner it was remodelled the better. What he objected to was the last sentence, because it raised some doubt as to the meaning of leaving out Clause 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. By omitting that clause, as proposed in his (Lord Monks-well's) Amendment, they deprived the owner of one particular means of getting compensation only. The rights of the landlord with regard to damage in consequence of severance remained exactly as before; therefore it was unnecessary to insert the proposed provision, but as this was a model clause he did not wish to fight it.