WAR MEMORIALS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS) BILL. (Hansard, 28 June 1923)

§ LORD ROCHDALE
My Lords, in moving that the House resolves itself into Committee on this Bill I may say that on the Second Reading of the Bill a doubt was expressed as to whether it included all war memorials. Since then I have had a letter from the most rev. Primate asking me that particular question. I have seen the draftsman who assures me that the Bill covers all war memorials either at the present time or at any future time to be vested in local authorities. Certain local authorities can spend money on war memorials and other authorities cannot. The object of the Bill is to make it 692 possible for all local authorities mentioned in the Bill to spend money on the preservation and protection of war memorials.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to express my thanks to him for having gone into this question. We are all anxious that the object of the Bill should be carried out, and I am glad to think that the doubts which were expressed on the Second Reading prove to be ill-founded. I have had some correspondence with the most rev. Primate on the Bill, and the question he raises is whether the words "which may be vested in them" would include war memorials vested in local authorities after the date of the passing of this Bill. If the noble Earl who represents the Department dealing with this subject can assure us that there is no doubt on the point I shall be very glad.
It is very desirable that in all legislation we should not allow any question of doubt to pass without some comment or assurance. It is wholly wrong, and derogatory to the position of this House, that we should pass legislation of which we are not quite certain, or legislation which will give rise to further legislation afterwards. Let me point to the next Order on the Paper, the Agricultural Holdings Act (Amendment) Bill. We ought not to find it necessary to have such a Bill brought forward for Second Reading, and if we had properly and without delay considered the matter, this amending legislation would not have been necessary. I do not want amending legislation to be introduced in this House; that is why I have ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to this matter. I hope I may have the approval of your Lordships' House in this respect. On the immediate point I invite the noble Earl who speaks for the Government to tell us whether in the view of the Department there is any doubt or not with regard to the interpretation of the words I have quoted.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)
My Lords, the noble Earl opposite has asked me for my opinion. I had a few words with him beforehand, and though I have not had an 693 opportunity of consulting the Department, I have consulted the learned Government draftsman, who tells me that this is the usual method of drafting, and that the words mean "which may be or become vested in them." I understand that an Act of Parliament always reads as if it were in the present, and therefore any memorial which came into possession of one of these parties, even many years hence, would be subject to the Bill. If it applied only to those actually in their possession at the present time the words would be "which may be vested in them at the time of the passing of this Act." I understand that to be the position, and I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied.