RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 6 April 1911)

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)
My Lords, I have had an opportunity of giving the terms of this Bill some consideration. I think that probably your Lordships feel that the principle of the Bill is a good one, analogous as it is to the principle of the Prescription Act as applied to private rights of way, but the question is a very technical and difficult one. I have read some of your Lordships' proposed Amendments, and I own I have great sympathy with the attempts made to deal with points where it is thought injustice would be done to owners of land. On the other hand, I have read the Amendments proposed by my noble friend behind me to meet these points, but I am not sure that difficulties would not then arise in other ways. It seems to me very desirable that we should have the advantage of the assistance of the Government draftsman, and, if possible, of the Law Officers in regard to this Bill. I therefore suggest that, if your Lordships agree, the measure should be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, in order that it may be thoroughly sifted and put into shape before it comes up again for the consideration of the House. There are undoubtedly points which require closer consideration than it is possible to give on an occasion like this. I am not prepared to suggest Amendments with regard to the provisions of the Bill without a good deal of consideration, and, possibly, some assistance; and if your Lordships thought fit to take the course I have suggested, I would move that the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
My Lords, the suggestion which the noble Viscount has made seems a very reasonable and wise one. It is obvious to any one with legal attainments, or even to any one without legal attainments, who reads the Bill that it bristles with points that require consideration and possibly amendment, and therefore I think it is wiser to thresh the matter out in a Joint Committee of both Houses, where it could be thoroughly 1076 discussed. There are points raising matters of law and involving technicalities that require a good deal of examination, and it would be wise that the Bill should go to a Joint Committee.

§ LORD EVERSLEY
My Lords, I need hardly say that the course proposed by His Majesty's Government is an agreeable one to me. I recognise the great difficulty of arguing the technical points that arise on this Bill in Committee of the whole House, and it seems to me that the subject would be better ventilated by the reference of the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. The course proposed would, in my opinion, be favourable to the passing of the Bill; for if it is agreed to by a Joint Committee, in all probability there would be no difficulty in passing it through both Houses of Parliament.

§ LORD NEWTON
My Lords, having put down several Amendments to this Bill, I should like to say that I have no objection to the course proposed by the noble Viscount, provided that I have not to serve on the Joint Committee. But I take this opportunity of stating that the Amendments which stand in my name were not put down with any hostile intention, and that I have no hostile feeling whatever against the principle of the Bill. I say this because I should not like the impression to be conveyed by the Motion of the noble Viscount that this House is in any way hostile to the principle of the Bill.

§ LORD ALVERSTONE
My Lords, I did not intrude when this Bill was read a second time, although considerable reference was made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a judgment that I had given in an important case—the case of the Duke of Sutherland—which to a certain extent gave rise to the necessity for this Bill. I think the noble Lord was rather in error in certain references he made to the other decision of Mr. Justice Chitty. But I have only risen to concur in the course suggested—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee—and to point out that whatever view be adopted with regard to some of these Amendments they will inevitably necessitate consequential Amendments at later stages. Therefore I think it is necessary that there should be expert assistance in dealing with the wording of the Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
My Lords, as several Amendments stand in my name I should like to say that I, too, concur in the course which it is proposed to take. I am sure any one of your Lordships who has read the Bill or tried to amend it must be well aware that its drafting is by no means perfect. One thing, at all events, is quite certain—that there have been a good many cooks employed on this Bill; and some of those cooks, I would say from the result of their work, were not legal cooks. However that may be, I wish to say that I have no objection whatever to the suggested course with regard to this Bill. In fact I quite agree with those who have spoken, that t he best course is to refer this Bill to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. With regard to the clause which I propose to omit, I mentioned this matter on the Second Reading, and the Lord Chancellor suggested that it would be better to deal with the Scottish law as to rights of way, which is entirely different from the English law, in a separate Bill. That was a hint which I thought a very good one, and perhaps the Joint Committee may see fit to deal with the point in the way the noble and learned Lord suggested. But because noble Lords from Scotland disapprove of dealing with this question as it affects Scotland in a single clause tacked on to a Bill which relates to an entirely different law of rights of way, it must not be supposed that for that reason we are in any way hostile to the object of this Bill; and if we had gone into Committee to-day I should have been able to show that not one of my Amendments was prompted by any desire to wreck the Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)
My Lords, what the noble Earl has said is perfectly true with this exception, that when I said there ought to be separate treatment of Scotland I did not mean to convey that there ought to he a separate Bill. The whole House, I am quite satisfied, is desirous of carrying out the principle underlying this Bill. I conceived that all through the Second Reading debate; and I hope that the result of the step which my noble friend Lord Haldane has suggested will be that we shall get an agreed Bill and one which will pass as an agreed Bill through both Houses of Parliament without unnecessary delay. I think that would be a most gratifying course to the noble Lord who 1078 has introduced this Bill, and whose persistent efforts on behalf of the public in this cause will, I think, be acknowledged by all.