HL Deb 31 July 1918 vol 31 cc121-36

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to call attention to the Reports of the Acquisition of Powers Sub-Committee, and the First Report of the Committee dealing with the law and practice relating to the acquisition and valuation of land for public purposes, both presented to Parliament by the Ministry of Reconstruction; to lay certain Papers upon the Table, and to move that they be printed and circulated.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, in withdrawing his Motion, reminded your Lordships that no doubt you were anxious to proceed to further and very important business this evening; and I will promise your Lordships that I will not detain you at any length now, although I have a very important matter to bring to your notice in view of the forthcoming adjournment. Therefore I feel it my duty not to postpone the subject, but to bring it forward to-day. Your Lordships are aware that the Reports of two Committees appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction are now before the House.

The first is known as the Report of the Acquisition of Powers Sub-Committee, which was presided over by a very distinguished Englishman, Sir George Murray. That Committee dealt with a number of points which arise in the course of Private Bill and Provisional Order procedure in your Lordships' House. They made certain recommendations which I need not enumerate. They are, I think, all useful—although I do not wish to commit myself to saying that, I agree with all of them—they are all useful as calling attention to important points. The Committee recommended, in accordance with the terms of their reference, that certain other points in your Lordships' procedure should be in- quired into by a Parliamentary Committee. Their exact wording is— We were also directed to consider the desirability of moving Parliament to appoint a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider the simplification of procedure in the case of Private Bills and Provisional Orders. We suggest that Parliament should be moved to appoint such a Committee. If I may say so, with all respect to the distinguished men who supported this recommendation. I believe it to be a perfectly right and proper recommendation. Parliament is the proper body to consider reforms in the procedure of Parliament, and that is recognised by this committee as I believe it has always been recognised here.

But there is before Your Lordships the Report of a Second Committee presided over by a member of the other House, Mr. Leslie Scott. It is called the First, Report of the Committee dealing with the Law and Practice relating to the Acquisition and Valuation of Land for Public Purposes. It is a Committee of which I do not wish to speak with anything but respect. All the members are men distinguished in many walks of life, but unless the two members of the other House have taken part in Private Bill procedure, of which I am not aware, I am correct in saying that they are not men of any experience at all in the problem of Private Bill procedure as a whole as it is submitted to your Lordships.

This Committee, according to its title, as I read it, was appointed to inquire into the subject of the acquisition of land, but that title in no way describes the activities of the Committee, and they evidently have considered a certain part of the procedure of your Lordships' House in Private Bill matters, believing they were considering the whole, with the result that we have a number of detailed recommendations to which I feel bound to call your Lordships' attention. The Committee, I believe, took no evidence in the sense that we understand—there is no evidence available for publication—and the result, I am afraid, is that I cannot hesitate to say that whilst they make a very severe condemnation of Private Bill business as carried out by this House, they also make a series of recommendations which are quite impracticable and which would only result in chaos if carried out on the lines on which they are laid down.

I have mentioned the fact that I believe the Committee took no evidence, but they say that they consulted certain people; and judging by one or two of the names mentioned of people they consulted, should be very surprised if these people advised them that their present proposals were workable in any shape or form. I have said, my Lords, that the Report condemns the present system. The Report begins with a covering letter from the Chairman of the Committee, in which I find these words in paragraph 7— On the other hand, the drawbacks of Private Bill procedure as it exists to-day are notorious. It is expensive, it is dilatory and cumbrous, even in the case of large new undertakings. This is, as I hold, a very severe condemnation of the practice of this House, and one is naturally curious to know on what authority this condemnation is based. The Committee, a little later, describe the practice of Parliamentary Private Bill procedure, and I presume it is on their knowledge, which leads them to describe it as they do, that they have made this condemnation.

I would call your Lordships' attention to one paragraph only of the Report to show the most unfair picture that is given of the practice of your Lordships' House in order that it may be condemned. It is paragraph 8 of the Report. The Committee say— Let us now, by way of illustration, trace the course of a promoter of a scheme from first to last, and see what delays and difficulties, not to mention expenses, he has to encounter—— I think I am not unfairly stating that this paragraph is a description of your Lordships' proceedings— In most cases he proceeds by Private Bill, notice of which can only be given in the month of November under Standing Orders—— The Standing Order which governs the matter in your Lordships' House does not confine the notice to November— Supposing such notice to have been duly given (in respect of the scheme mature for promotion, perhaps, in the preceding December)—— This is not fair. Your Lordships will be aware that late Bills are frequently allowed by the Standing Orders Committee— He has to satisfy the Examiners that his Bill complies with Standing Orders, when anyone who has presented a petition against his Bill may argue objections, which are often of a highly technical nature—— That statement is absolutely untrue—the fact that a person has petitioned against the Bill gives him no right to appear before the Examiner on matters of Standing Orders at all. Standing Order procedure was started some seventy years ago by the House of Commons and by your Lordships' House in order to save Committees upstairs front technical matters as to procedure. No petitioner has any right to appear before the Examiners at all. The fact that a man obtains the right to appear before the Examiners on Standing Order questions has no relation to the fact whether he is a petitioner or not— If he gets safely through this stage and Second Reading, his Bill is referred to a Select Committee generally of five members—— That is true of your Lordships' House— Here he must prove his case by counsel, agent, and witnesses, in addition to paying House fees—— That is perfectly true of opposed Bills, but the Committee do not seem to have realised the facts. I have here the figures for ten years proceedings of your Lordships' House in the matter of Private Bills, and I find that in those ten years only 28 per cent. of Bills have been opposed at all. Seventy-two per cent. of the Bills before your Lordships are unopposed. Surely it would have been more fair to have made that point clearer in pretending to describe our system as this paragraph is supposed to do— The several petitions may each be heard against the Bill by counsel, agents, and witnesses—— The Committee speak of our system as cumbrous. I think I may claim that a system is not very cumbrous where 72 per cent. Of the Bills get through without any expensive discussion upstairs in Committee room at all— The proceedings last from half a day up to three weeks or more—— This statement is incorrect. The usual time of a well-contested Bill—if I may use that phrase in the sense that it is used from the point of view of the Bar—does not exceed from four to six days. A Bill exceeding six days in Committee upstairs is a very, very exceptional thing— The expenses may be enormously heavy—— I am advised that it is very unlikely that the costs in proceedings upstairs are anything like the costs of proceedings of the same length in the Courts. I mention that in passing— If he gets through the Committee of the first House, and any petitioner appears against his Bill, the whole process has to be repeated before another Committee of the second House—again counsel, agents, and witnesses—— The process is almost invariably very much shorter in the second House than it has been in the first. In that matter I speak in the experience of your Lordships— If he gets through the second ordeal, even then his risks are not over, as the Bill may be thrown out on Report stage——

It is absolutely impossible for any Bill to be thrown out on Report stage in your Lordships' House. The Report stage on a Private Bill is purely formal. The title of the Bill is printed in your Lordships' Minutes, and there are no proceedings in the House at all. It is absolutely impossible for it to be thrown out on Report stage. on Third Reading. Again, my Lords, it is a most exceptional thing for any Bill to be thrown out on Third Reading. That is my experience. It is not a very long experience, but I can remember very few such instances. One, I know, was with regard to the tramways along the Embankment, which your Lordships will remember had a very chequered career. I confess that every time I go down the Embankment now and see one-third of the thoroughfare turned into a railway, I think that my vote was right to discourage or delay the carrying out of that so-called improvement in London.

Is this paragraph which I have read a fair description of the proceedings in your Lordships' House—this paragraph on which the Committee base their condemnation of our Private Bill procedure and suggest the most sweeping alternatives? I have no hesitation in saying that this procedure, as described by the Committee, has been undergone by no Bill in the last fifty years. I have no hesitation whatever in saying this, and I cannot help summing up by saying that it must be many years since so inaccurate a paragraph has appeared in a serious document that has been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. It was laid, I think, as your Lordships are aware, last January when I was away, but no time was lost. My noble friend Lord Kintore—who was acting as Chairman of Committees, and to whom I can never be sufficiently grateful for the work that he did and for the state in which I found the work when I returned—had been considering the matter in my absence, and as soon as I had time to read the Report, and I hope to digest it, I wrote to the Minister of Reconstruction, feeling as I did strongly that these matters of Parliamentary procedure ought to be dealt with by Committees of Parliament—that is, by men who have to carry them out.

I wrote to the Minister of Reconstruction asking him if he would be good enough to inform me whether His Majesty's Government intended to accept the recommendation of Sir George Murray's Committee and to appoint a Parliamentary Committee to consider this matter. I felt that this would be the proper body before whom to put my Views. I received his reply and, at his request, I am including two letters I had from him in the Papers which I desire to lay on the Table with the request that your Lordships should have them printed and circulated. I will not go through them, for the reason that I hope they will be printed, but it is not unfair to describe Dr. Addison's first letter as saying that of course the matter would be submitted to Parliament. It is so very important that perhaps I ought to mention his exact words.

A NOBLE LORD

What is the date?

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

July 12. He wrote— It will, of course, be necessary for the Government to consult both Houses of Parliament before adopting any scheme for the modification of an existing procedure or purview of Parliamentary Committees. That I take to be the familiar phrase—that His Majesty's Government will either present a Bill to your Lordships or else will propose modifications in the Standing Orders, which, of course, would do a great deal. I do not feel that that is sufficient. That is not the procedure which has been adopted hitherto, and what I am genuinely afraid of is that your Lordships may have a Bill presented to you, being told that it was founded on the Report of the Committee—rumour reaches me that the heads of a Bill have been actually prepared—that, after all, nobody expressed any dissatisfaction with the Report of the Committee; and, therefore, probably it means that everybody is satisfied. I should have been guilty of disrespect to the House had I not drawn your Lordships' attention to what I feel are the impossible proposals made by this Committee. Therefore this is what I have done. I have here a Memorandum by the counsel to the Chairman of Committees, Mr. Albert Gray, who is as expert as anybody in these matters. He has been counsel to the Chairman of Committees for twenty years, he has been in intimate relations with five of your Lordships who have done the work of Chairman of Committees, and there is no one more qualified to speak on the subject as a whole as it confronts your Lordships' House. I support this Memorandum, and I feel that in view of the forthcoming adjournment the document ought to be in your Lordships' hands and thus receive the same publicity which the Reports of Committees receive.

I do not wish to suggest that no reform of our Private Bill procedure is possible. I do not wish to take up an improper attitude as regards that, but I do feel that it is a very awkward thing to tackle during the war, when so many of your Lordships and those who would be useful witnesses are otherwise occupied than in the Private Bill business of your Lordships House. I would certainly co-operate in any way if your Lordships thought fit to undertake an inquiry in the direction suggested by Sir George Murray's Commission. I think there are three small points to which I ought to draw your Lordships' attention in regard to my friend Mr. Gray's Memorandum. It is proposed by the Committee that Private Bill procedure should in future be dealt with by a new body, under a Chairman who would be concerned with the whole of it, and that certain matters of policy might be referred to Parliament. The Committee do not seem to have realised that almost every clause in a Private Bill raises a matter of policy. But there is one point which I most object to. It is proposed that matters of policy might be considered by Parliament, by their own Committees that is, subject to two methods of machinery. The first method is, if a public Department thought it was necessary, and the second is, if a panel, consisting of the Chairman of the new authority, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, certified it as being necessary. I think that this is a very improper position in which to put the Chairman of Committees. It is not my business to certify whether a matter is important enough to be considered as a matter of policy by the House of Commons, and I do not think your Lordships would desire that the certificate of the Chairman of Ways and Means should be necessary before your Lordships can deal with a matter of policy. The proposal concerning the selection of the Commission is a very small point, but I feel that it is an important one. The Government have never been concerned with the people who are trying cases in your Lordships' Private Bill Committees. I do not suggest that the Government would do it badly, but the fact remains that it has always been a matter in charge of the House itself, and not in charge of the Government, and I think it would be a great pity to depart from it.

There is only one other matter which I ought to mention in justice to my friend the Clerk of the Parliaments. The signature of the Clerk of the Parliaments is on the Report of the second Committee, and he has been good enough to allow me to communicate with him on the subject. He assures me, and I have no doubt of its accuracy, that his position as Clerk of the Parliaments is in no way responsible for the fact of his being a member of the Committee. I mention this because the Minister of Munitions makes that claim. When I claimed that the point of view of the House of Lords was not properly appreciated, the reply was that an important official of the House of Lords was a member. My learned friend informs me that he was assisting in the office of the Minister of Reconstruction, before any of us, or he himself, knew that we were to have the pleasure of welcoming him here as Clerk of the Parliaments, and that when he became Clerk of the Parliaments he went on and completed the work he was already doing. He assures me, and I absolutely and entirely accept his assurance, that his membership of the Committee is in no way connected with his holding the much more important position of Chief Official of your Lordships' House.

Moved, That the Papers be printed and circulated.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, I rise only because in the speech of the Lord Chairman he has laid down a principle which I should be sorry to see pass without comment. In substance he has said that land should not be acquired for public purposes without a direct interposition to Parliament in every case. No doubt that has been the original principle of our law, but it has been to some extent modified in its application from time to time. The Provisional Orders system has somewhat lightened it, but even so the fact remains that in the general principle of the acquisition of land compulsorily, however valuable, it was necessary to make individual application to Parliament in each case. Can that be defended in the times in which we are living?

The principle of what is called "public utility" is well known in every English-speaking country. When a proper tribunal has decided that the land is required in the public interest, then it goes to a proper authority, certainly not to a Parliamentary authority, to determine what the value is, and what compensation should be paid to the landlord. That is a very proper provision, because the position of landowners is imperilled by reason of the fact that private ownership has too often stood in the, way of public policy. What I think most people are coming to see is that the safest position for the owners of land is to secure them in the proprietorial of the value of their land as distinct from the land itself. The sacredness of individual propriety in land has been long ago broken into. In the speech with reference to the two Committees of which the Lord Chairman spoke, the principle goes somewhat further than Lord Cairn's Settled Land Act, because it is a principle which deals with the compulsory acquisition of land which is needed for public purposes.

We have the Report of two Committees before us—one Sir George Murray's, which came to a very different conclusion from that indicated by the Committee over which Mr. Leslie Scott presided. Sir George Murray's Committee recommended simply that the system of Provisional Orders should be much freer from the interference which Parliament makes of it, and that simple means should be introduced enabling persons and corporations who really require land for public purposes to acquire it. The reason is that the cost of getting a Bill through Parliament, or a Provisional Order, is very great at the present time. You may improve the system as you like, but nobody need try and persuade me that a cheap method of acquiring land is to promote a Private Bill here, go upstairs, with fees of Counsel and agents, fees of the House, and, above all, the costly expenditure of bringing expert witnesses before the Committee. It may be that in the majority of cases there is no opposition. That depends on how the people settle it; but even then it is a very expensive process.

Public opinion has changed enormously within the last generation, and we are very near the acceptance of the principle of public utility, that if land he required in the public interest it should be readily and cheaply obtained, subject to the supervision of a proper authority, but without the costly method of conveyancing which exists today. I think that it is quite right that we should have the two Reports, and any other Papers which the Lord Chairman thinks will be illuminating to us, but I agree with him also that not one step can be taken in this direction without a Bill. It is not a question of referring the matter to a Parliamentary Committee. I altogether deprecate that. It is a great question of principle which must be dealt with by the method of committee, and embodied in a Bill which will come before Parliament and be discussed by your Lordships and by the other House, as all great public Bills are. It is then that we shall have the proposals of the Government before us. We have already two Reports, and there may be other Reports and other accounts bearing on the subject, and until the Government has got the complete material I do not apprehend that it is likely to take any decided step in the way of drafting this Bill. However that may be, there is certainly no harm in our having what is being embodied from time to time in the Reports of the various Committees which have had this Question before them.

There are several other Committees which to my knowledge have been brought face to face with this question. One of the scandals that exist today is that you cannot get a Minerals Bill through without the costly payment of way-leaves to people willing to give you the way-leaves, and long ago a Royal Commission of a very conservative character reported that that was a system which was very injurious to the mineral wealth of the country. I mention that only to show the noble Lord that there are other instances which have to be taken into account besides those which were before his mind, and which are discussed in the Reports of those two Committees. I think that on a Bill is the proper time to bring the matter forward, and I assume that if the Government decide to act upon the evidence which is before them, they will shape their own Bill after taking their own counsel, and with the full responsibility of the heads of the Government behind them. When that time comes, and not till that time comes, shall we know what is proposed and be able to discuss it. Meantime, I think that there is no harm in our seeing any Papers or Reports which already exist, and I think that it is very desirable that we should see those Reports.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has given some description of the work of these two Committees, one of which he has so severely criticised. I confess that I was for the moment rather surprised to find that the noble Lord praised so highly the work of the previous Committee—Sir George Murray's Committee—one of those Committees that recommended a large extension of the Provisional Order system, whereas the other Committee, presided over by Mr. Leslie Scott, criticised the extension of the Provisional Order system, and insisted that Parliament, and Parliament alone, through a Committee, should deal with the bulk of these matters; in fact this Committee went into the question of the Provisional Order system, and dismissed it after discussion. It discussed also the question of having a Standing Commission set up on the analogy of the Canal Commission; and again, after having discussed the propriety of setting up such a Commission, decided it was better not so to do.

I think that my noble friend may perhaps have given the impression that the Committee presided over by Mr. Leslie Scott dealt only with Parliamentary procedure, and that it was rather rushing rashly into ground sacred to my noble friend. That really is not the case. The reference to the Committee is far wider, I think, and I propose to read it. It is— To consider and report upon the defects in the existing system of law and practice involved in the acquisition and valuation of land for public purposes, and to recommend any changes that may be desirable in the public interest. This Report, which has fallen under the severe condemnation of my noble friend, is only the first Report, and possibly there may be two or three others which deal with other branches of this subject. Therefore it must not be supposed that this was a Committee appointed merely for the purpose of recommending changes in Parliamentary procedure.

One slight error which my noble friend fell into was this. He said that these Committees were appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction. That is not so. They were appointed before the Ministry of Reconstruction was set up. All that the Ministry of Reconstruction had to do was to receive these Reports and consider them, and if necessary recommend some action upon them. But they were not definitely appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction, but were appointed, as were several committees on reconstruction, at a date previous in history to the setting up of the Ministry of Reconstruction.

I am not quite certain what is the precise point, as representing the Ministry of Reconstruction, that I have to reply to. Though a Government sets up a committee, it is not, I presume, held responsible for all the recommendations of that Committee, much less for any possible inaccuracy that may have crept into the Report of the Committee. On the question of whether there are accuracies or inaccuracies in that long Report I therefore do not propose to enter, because I do not think it is my business to do so. I leave the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Leslie Scott, to meet the formidable criticisms of my noble friend on these questions of detail. I was to some extent surprised on hearing the criticism, because when I looked at the names of the Committee I found that some of them were the names of gentlemen familiar with these points. I see, among these gentlemen, Mr. Freeman, K.C., and Mr. Honoratus Lloyd, K.C., who have practised before these Committees for twenty years, and who are quite well qualified, I should have thought, to pronounce upon the question of the expense of these committees. Besides those gentlemen there are several very experienced persons, like Sir Harcourt Clare, Mr. Dickson Davies, and men of that kind who, if there is anything to be known, know everything that there is to be known about promoting Bills before Parliamentary Committee. My noble friend shakes his head most vigorously at that. But I only wish to say that there is the point of view of the Committees, and of the Chairman of Committees, and there is the point of view of promoters, and I think that the promoters have a right, if I may respectfully say so to my learned friend, to have their point of view upon it.

I have been a promoter myself. I have promoted a great many Bills for the London County Council, and been in charge of them before Committees, and I think that I have a right to say, and that other people have a right to say, that the expenses are very great indeed. I have the Bills before me, and am very familiar with them. Though I do not wish to lay much stress upon that, I should think there were persons outside pure parliamentarians—outside persons in your Lordships' House and in the Commons—who know by, I was going to say, bitter experience, the expense of promoting Bills, and therefore I am not quite certain whether my noble friend contends that no Committee that inquires into these matters of Private Bill procedure and expense shall be constituted except exclusively of members of either House of Parliament. Or is it wrong, as I submit it is not wrong, for the Minister of Reconstruction or the Prime Minister of appoint on a Committee a number of gentlemen to advise him on these points who have experience but are not precisely qualified by the technical experience possessed by my noble friend, or by the Chairman of Committees in the other House.

This question of procedure in Parliament is not the main object of the appointment of this Committee. Was the Prime Minister or the other Minister not justified in appointing such a Committee to inquire into a large subject, some part of which might trench upon rights and privileges—namely the subject of improving the procedure under which these measures were carried through both Houses of Parliament? I do not know if my noble friend would press his point so far as that. As to the other point, whether the Committee has exceeded its reference and gone beyond its powers, that is another matter, and I do not understand that upon that my noble friend said anything. I think he rather assumed that they were entitled under their reference to say what they did say.

I have no doubt that my noble friend has a legitimate complaint, though on that I do not wish to speak, but it has come purely from my noble friend. There is another official who is a guardian of the rights and privileges of another place, the Chairman of Committees there. He has not made any criticisms of this Report, and the criticism of the Report comes, therefore, purely from my noble friend and not from those whose duty it is to consider questions of Private Bill legislation in another place. My noble friend, I think, made it something of a grievance that sufficient, oral evidence was not taken. Evidence was taken from the Chairman of Committees in another place, and it was not taken, unfortunately, from my noble friend, who would, of course, being fully charged with those matters, have given the most valuable evidence before this Committee. But why was it not given? Simply because my noble friend, fulfilling so many other public duties besides that of Chairman of Committees, at the time that this Committee was sitting was thundering round India on a triumphal car.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

No, that is not so. I was here for three months while this Committee was sitting.

VISCOUNT PEEL

But at the time that I refer to he was not here. He may have been avoiding submarines in the Mediterranean, or drawing up a great Constitution for India, but at all events the opportunity was not present of considering these changes. May I say this? I do not think it is my business to defend this Committee, but I should like to say two things about it. One is that it speaks with the utmost respect of the Committees of this House, and the other House, and of the way in which they discharge their duty; and the other is that, when they have given a general sketch of their idea of procedure and of the particular kind of Committee which should be set up (or "sanctioning authority" I think they call it) to deal with these Bills, they come to the sacred subject of Parliamentary procedure and they then draw back and say "This is a matter for Parliament, and we respectfully ask Parliament to deal with these things." So that I do not really think, so far as I read the Report, that there is any actual lèse majestè on the part of this Committee, although I admit it may have dealt with matters very fully that were within the purview of my noble friend.

It is not my duty to defend the Committee, but the appointment of the Committee, and on that I think my noble friend has made no very serious attack. But, after all, is any harm done, although the Committee has reported in this way? Nothing, of course, can be done without a Bill going through Parliament, and Parliament can then appoint a Select Committee, if it chooses, in the ordinary way. If it does not appoint a Select Committee, and it proposes to act on the proposals of this or that Committee, that is the business of Parliament, and, after all, Parliament can take care of itself. Therefore, I do not think any harm has been done. And although at the present moment I understand that the Government have not come to any decision as to whether to proceed on the Report of this Committee or not, when it does come to such a decision, and when a Bill is brought before the House it will be considered in the ordinary way, and every man will be able to display his considerable knowledge of Parliamentary procedure on these matters, or the matter can be referred to a Committee in the ordinary way. Then the only remaining point is as to the exact Motion made by my noble friend. My noble friend has written, I understand, certain letters to the Minister, extracts from one of which he has read to the House and he wishes that those letters should be printed, and also a Report.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

That is the request of the Minister.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think my noble friend desired his own letter——

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I am quite indifferent as to whether my own letters appear. I want the Memorandum of Mr. Gray to appear.

VISCOUNT PEEL

On behalf of the Minister of Reconstruction there is no objection to the letters and the Memorandum being printed, and if that will satisfy my noble friend, he will, perhaps, be content with this virtual acceptance of his Motion.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not propose to enter the lists with my noble friend the Chairman of Committees on ground where he is supreme sovereign, and where I have no special knowledge or experience. But I think I can throw a little light on the genesis of this Committee. I was Chairman of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee, and my Committee had the same experience as several of the other Committees appointed by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George in turn in connection with the pro- blem of reconstruction. Quite independently we found ourselves over and over again faced with what seemed to us the delay, the unnecessary expense, and the complexity of the processes by which land is acquired for public purposes. A number of these Committees joined in memorialising the Prime Minister to appoint a Committee to deal with this special subject. That I believe to be the genesis of the special Committee of which Mr. Leslie Scott was Chairman.

When I saw the names of that Committee I confess I thought, as I still think, that a stronger Committee could hardly have been selected. My noble friend Lord Peel has already dealt with that point. I do not think he exaggerated at all. I think it was an extraordinarily competent and strong Committee for the reference confided to it. Now we have one of its Reports, and I believe we are going to have other Reports, and as Lord Peel has said, nothing can be done except by legislation, to which this House will be asked to consent. But I do want to emphasise what he said about the favour with which this first Report has been received outside the walls of Parliament. Certainly, from the evidence brought to my notice the concensus of favour is very remarkable. I believe the Surveyors Institution, a body thoroughly well known and understood in this House, stated that there was not one single word that they wanted altered, nor had they one single word to propose in addition. A stronger commendation of the Report, from a body so competent to give it, it would not be easy to imagine.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I only wish to reply to the noble Earl who has just spoken, and to say that they have not yet heard the case of the other side, and I felt that I should be wanting in my duty, if that Report really sets up a scheme which would be unworkable, if I did not call your Lordships' attention to the fact.

On Question, Motion agreed to.