HL Deb 16 December 1908 vol 198 cc1817-24

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

LORD DENMAN

I think it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I state that after consultation with noble Lords opposite we have settled all except one of the outstanding points that were at issue between us, and I think if it will meet with the approval of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton, whose Amendment is first dealt with, I will formally move the Amendments as they ought to be read into the Bill.

Lords' Amendment— In page 4, line 10, to leave out the words 'compulsory purchase,' and to insert the words 'acquisition.'

LORD DENMAN

I beg to move that this House do insist on its Amendment.

Lords' Amendment— In page 4, line 14, after the word 'Board to insert the words '(a) If land is not proposed' to be taken compulsorily; or (b) if, although land is proposed to be taken compulsorily, the Local Government Board, before making an absolute order, are satisfied that notice of the draft or Provisional Order, as the case may be, has been served as required as respects a Provisional Order by subsection (5) of Section 8 of the Act of 1890, and also that the draft or Provisional Order, as the case may be, has been published in the Dublin Gazette, and that a petition against it has not been presented to the Local Government Board by any owner of land proposed to be taken compulsorily within two months after the date of the publication and the service of notice, or having been so presented, has been withdrawn.'

The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following reason: Because it is undesirable to restrict the operation of an Order of the Local Government Board under the clause.

LORD DENMAN

I move that this House do not insist on its Amendment, with which the Commons have disagreed, but inserts in lieu thereof— In page 4, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'an order of the Local Government Board' and to insert the words 'where, a petition is presented by a local authority to the Local Government Board for an order.' In page 4, to leave out lines 12, 13, and 14, and to insert the words 'The provisions of Section 6 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in the case of the petitioners to such proceedings and orders therein in like manner as they apply in the case of an improvement scheme under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1906. The Lord-Lieutenant in Council may make such adoption of those provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for carrying this section into effect.' In page 4, line 15, to leave out subsection (2).

Lords' Amendment— In page 4, line 31, after the word 'published,' to insert the following new subsections: '(4) If an order of the Local Government Board, which, if no petition were presented would take effect without confirmation, is presented against, the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the application of the local authority, make any modifications in the scheme to which the order relates for the purpose of meeting the objections of the petitioner and withdraw the order sanctioning the original scheme, substituting for it an order sanctioning the modified scheme. (5) The same procedure shall be followed as to the publication and giving notices and the same provisions shall apply as to the presentation of petitions and the effect of the order, in the case of the order sanctioning the modified scheme, as in the case of the order sanctioning the original scheme, but no petition shall be received or have any effect except one which was presented against the original order or one which is concerned solely with the modifications made in the scheme as sanctioned by the new order. (6) The provisions of this section shall extend to orders of the Local Government Board made after the passing of this Act upon petitions of local authorities presented before the passing of this Act.'

The Commons proposed to amend this Amendment by leaving out subsections (4) and (5).

LORD DENMAN

I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their said Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, that subsection (6) be struck out and in lieu thereof, the following words be inserted after the word "published" in line 31, "The provisions of this section shall extend to all petitions which are pending at the passing of this Act."

Lords' Amendment— In page 7, line 11, after the word 'Woods,' to insert the words '(4) Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the appropriation or utilisation for the purposes of the Act of any common or commonable land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground, or any land held on trusts which prohibit building thereon, or held in trust for some charitable purpose, or for some particular public purpose specified or defined, as distinguished from the general purposes of a municipality or township or the general benefit or advantage of the inhabitants thereof.'

The Commons proposed to amend this Amendment by leaving out the word "Act" in line 1 and inserting the word "section," and by leaving out from the word "ground" in line 5 to the end of the subsection.

LORD DENMAN

I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords' Amendment. The subsection, as amended, will read— (4) Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the appropriation or utilisation for the purposes of the Act of any common or commonable land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground.

LORD ATKINSON

I now beg to move the insertion of certain words in lieu of the words struck out by the Commons at the end of subsection (4) of Clause 13 which was inserted by the Lords. The original Amendment absolutely prohibited the local authority from parting with lands held in trust, but this will enable them to do so provided they get the sanction of the Court of Chancery.

Amendment moved— To insert in lieu of the words struck out by the Commons, the following words, 'Or, without the sanction of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, obtained in manner hereinafter provided, or any land held in trust for a specific charitable purpose to which it is reasonably capable of being effectively applied, or held in trust for a particular and specific public purpose to which it is reasonably capable of being similarly applied. The said Chancery Division on a petition being by the local authority presented to it in manner prescribed by rules, which the said Division is hereby authorised to make in that behalf, may make an order sanctioning the proposed appropriation or utilisation of the said land so held for charitable or public purposes as aforesaid, or of a part thereof, on being satisfied that the objects of the trusts on which the said land is hold will not be thereby substantially defeated or prejudiced.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)

LORD DENMAN

I am afraid I am obliged to oppose this Amendment, and I really hope the noble and learned Lord will not feel compelled to press it. I think it will be in the recollection of the House that the Government have given way on almost every point that has been at issue on this particular Bill, and, therefore, I hope the House will not consider it necessary to pass into law the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord proposes. In this matter again I cannot help feeling that I am placed at a great disadvantage, because it is almost purely a legal question and one with which only lawyers can deal. But I am bound to say that to the ordinary lay mind the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord desires to propose at this stage does appear to be of a rather formidable character. I leave out any mention of its length, but will go on to read one or two things it says. For instance it says— Obtained in manner hereinafter provided, of any land held in trust for a specific charitable purpose to which it is reasonably capable of being effectively applied, or held in trust for a particular and specific public purpose to which it is reasonably capable of being similarly applied. That may be perfectly clear to the legal mind, but to the lay mind I submit it is absolutely perplexing. Then you will notice at the end of the Amendment— The objects of the trusts on which the said land is held will not be thereby substantially defeated or prejudiced. It must be fair to ask what is "substantially prejudiced."

LORD ATKINSON

It is a common Word. It means in this case substantially injured or damaged.

LORD ASHBOURNE

It makes the provision more elastic.

LORD DENMAN

I pass from these extracts and come to the effect of the Amendment, which will be this. The local authority, in order to allow any land to be taken out of trust for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings, may be obliged to face all the difficulties which will be imposed by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord of coming to the Court of Chancery in order to obtain the sanction of the Court. Is it reasonable to suppose that any local authority would face such an undertaking as that? Really the effect of this Amendment will be to render the entire clause nugatory, and I am instructed to say—I do not say it is my own opinion—that it would be far better to omit the clause altogether than to insert the Amendment, because it would really be entirely superfluous if the Amendment were put in. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord may not think it necessary to press his Amendment at this stage.

LORD ATKINSON

I regret to say I am entirely unable to agree with the appeal the noble Lord has made to me. He says that this Amendment would practically destroy the clause. I should not be sorry if it did; but that is not my object. There was a clause exactly similar to this introduced by the Government into the Town Planning Bill for England, and it was so bad that it was withdrawn by the President of the Local Government Board. The clause as it originally stood in the Bill was in my judgment iniquitious. To say that any local body which holds land upon trust, often bound by statute, may, with the mere consent of the Local Government Board, divert it altogether from the purpose for which it was entrusted to them is to enable the local authority to become fraudulent trustees. That is a short way of describing the position, but it is a true one. My Amend- ment does not prohibit them from alienating land held in trust where they can get the consent of the Court of Chancery to do so, provided they do not interfere substantially with the purpose for which the land was originally entrusted to them. There are many instances I could give where land has been entrusted to local authorities for the purpose of public gardens, recreation grounds, open spaces, and so forth. It would be shameful if they were allowed to cover all that land with workmen's houses, though I admit it might be reasonable for them to take away an acre or two acres, if they were absolutely necessary, to carry out some particular scheme. I am willing to give them the greatest possible latitude consistent with protecting the interests of the public, and it is in order that they may not substantially interfere with the trust that has been imposed on them that I have framed this Amendment.

LORD DENMAN

I note something which fell from the noble and learned Lord, and I will see if I can take him at his word. He said he would not be sorry if this clause were omitted from the Bill altogether. I will ask him then in that case whether he will consent to the omission of the clause altogether.

LORD ASHBOURNE

It could not be done.

LORD DENMAN

I have taken advice on the point.

LORD ASHBOURNE

How can it be done? Both Houses have agreed to the clause down to a particular point, and we are only at liberty now to deal with this Amendment. We cannot clear ourselves of the part of the clause agreed upon by both Houses.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Surely it is quite competent to do so. What has happened is that the House of Lords proposed to amend the clause in the Bill. The House of Commons subsequently proposed to leave out part of the Amendment, and you have agreed to that. You can surely go a step further by leaving out the whole of the clause.

LORD ATKINSON

I should like to point out that my noble frend Lord Meath moved an Amendment to the clause as it originally stood in the Bill. That Amendment was accepted, and it has been agreed to by the House of Commons. I should be quite willing, so far as my own Amendment is concerned, to see the clause dealt with in the manner suggested by the noble Lord opposite.

LORD DENMAN

My only object on behalf of the Government is to prevent what we consider a purely superfluous clause being put into an Act of Parliament. I have taken advice on the subject. I have consulted the clerks at the Table and other competent authorities, and I am told that it is perfectly possible to omit the clause altogether at this stage if the House consents to do so. Therefore, I think that would really be the simplest course for us to adopt.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The House is placed in a position of some difficulty, and I should welcome any means of extricating ourselves from it. I understand the suggestion now made by His Majesty's Government is that the difficulty should be solved by getting rid of the whole of Clause 13. Some doubts are raised as to the regularity of the procedure, but if His Majesty's Government are satisfied on the point and will recommend that this course be taken on their responsibility, we shall raise no objection on this side.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENMAN

Before moving to omit the clause, are we not obliged first of all to agree with the Commons' Amendment?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think we are bound to do so at all. It is sufficient for us to move that we now omit the clause.

Moved, "To leave out Clause 13."

Lords' Amendment— In page 7, line 15, after '1890,' to insert the [words] 'of any town, the population of which, according to the last census exceeds two thousand.'

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following reason: Because it is undesirable to limit the powers of dealing with unhealthy dwelling-houses in towns whose population exceeds two thousand.

Moved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed."—(Lord Denman.)

A Committee appointed to prepare a reason for the Lords insisting on one of their Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.