THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper with reference to this Bill.
§ Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Bill.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF MEATHMy Lords, as Chairman of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, which in 1918 was interested in the passing of the St. Olave's, Southwark, Church Act, 1918, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to give expression to a few explanatory remarks on the attitude proposed to be assumed by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association towards the Bill at present in your Lordships' hands. Under the powers conferred by the St. Olave's, Southwark, Church Act, 1918, the Church of St. Olave's, Southwark, and the site thereof, and the churchyard and any lands or vaults attached or belonging thereto, except the tower of the said church and part of the said churchyard and of the site of the said church, were sold by certain trustees. These excepted premises are known as the reserved premises. It is about these reserved premises that I wish to make a few remarks.
By Section 9 of the Act of 1918 it was enacted that nothing in that Act should be deemed to allow any building to be erected on the reserved premises and the reserved premises and any rights attached or belonging thereto were vested in the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey for enjoyment by the public—please note those words "for enjoyment by the public"—and were directed to be maintained and managed by the Council as an open space under the provisions 538 of the Open Spaces Act of 1906, by the name of St. Olave's Garden. It is now ten years since your Lordships passed this enactment, but since that day no steps have been taken by the Bermondsey Borough Council to carry out your Lordships' directions as regards the tower and that portion of the disused burial ground which was to be reserved as an open space for enjoyment by the public. At present, owing to the Open Spaces Act, the old burial ground cannot be built upon. Your Lordships will remark that. At present, unless this Bill becomes an Act, this ground cannot be built upon: hence this Bill which desires to obtain your Lordships' sanction to an Act which would relieve the Bermondsey Borough Council of their obligations under the St. Olave's Church Act of 1918. By this Bill they hope to persuade your Lordships to override several Acts of Parliament, the Acts of 1884, 1906 and 1918.
The reserved premises are adjacent to those of the proprietors of Hay's Wharf, Limited, whose business demands the increase of their wharfage, and they have agreed with the Borough Council for the purchase of the said area, subject to the sanction of Parliament, and subject also to the condition that the said tower shall be demolished, and that part of the purchase money, alleged to be £10,000, shall be applied by the Council in, or towards, the acquisition and laying out by the Council of another open space in the said Borough. In order to induce the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association to assent to this arrangement, the promoters of the present Bill have written to me, through the Town Clerk of the Borough, two letters, by which they undertake, when the Bill goes into Committee, to propone certain Amendments in connection with Clause 9. This is what they propose, and it is well that your Lordships should hear what they have written:—
The Council shall retain the remaining three equal fourths of the said balance and will, within three years from the passing of this Act, apply the same in or towards the acquisition and laying out of a public open space and recreation ground within the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey, namely, the site of the old workhouse in Tanner Street, or alternatively in acquiring some other suitable site in the said Borough and laying same out as an open space.539 This Amendment was only sent on the 16th inst. I received it on the 17th and, of course, the 18th being a Sunday, I had no time to consult with my friends on the matter. I apologise to the Chairman of Committees, who will see that I could not possibly have informed him sooner with regard to the matter.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREThe noble Earl will not forget that my colleagues in the office gave him notice a week ago of this Motion.
THE EARL OF MEATHI am afraid I must inform the Chairman that I did not receive that notice before the date I have said.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI am sorry, but I gave the noble Earl notice that this debate was coming on.
THE EARL OF MEATHNot to me. From the open space point of view this Amendment may seem to be attractive, but I would like to see the substitution of the word "two" for the word "three" in the Amendment and also the insertion of the words "and maintaining" after the words "laying same out" and the words "either of the sites acquired" at the end. To safeguard the interest of the Open Spaces Society I had proposed to move the rejection of the Chairman of Committee's Motion, that the Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with, but since then I have spoken to Lord Arnold and I am perfectly satisfied from what he tells me that I need not take this step as I understand from him that another Amendment which I propose will be accepted. I therefore merely informed Tour Lordships in regard to that matter.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, I am sure you will give me credit when I say that I do not object to changes of procedure when they are convenient being occasionally adopted in your Lordships' House, but I do protest against what the noble Earl is doing this evening. This Bill was introduced in the ordinary way and it gave rise to criticism by some of your Lordships and my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie gave notice of its rejection on the Second Reading. Since then he has been good enough to discuss the matter with me and to discuss the matter with representatives of the promoters. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, is in sympathy with 540 the objects of the promoters in this matter, and certain discussions have taken place into which I need no go, with the result that whereas Lord Muir Mackenzie's Motion was put down on March 6 to reject the Bill it disappeared on March 13 because he was satisfied with the discussions that had taken place.
I repeat that on March 14 Lord Meath was informed at my office that this debate was coming on to-day. I only make this Motion in accordance with my duty when Bills are unopposed, and the noble Earl has had a week to give notice of his intention to oppose. Had that notice been given I should have disappeared and it would have been my duty to call on a member of your Lordships' House to move this Motion and to give your Lordships whatever advice I thought desirable or necessary in the circumstances. Instead of that the noble Earl does nothing until to-day when it is too late to get into communication with the promoters or to get into communication with the officials of your Lordships' House in order to alter the Paper, and he opposes this Motion which I make in a formal manner. This is a discourtesy which has not, as a rule, found part in the procedure of your Lordships' House and I feel that I have no remedy, for my own protection, but to move the adjournment of the debate. I move that this debate be now adjourned.
§ Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ LORD ARNOLDMy Lords, the position which has arisen is one which I am hopeful can be adjusted. The statement by the noble Earl on the Woolsack is, of course, one which will receive very close attention from your Lordships, but I am now going to make a statement about the whole matter beginning with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Meath. I wish to deal with the point which he has raised.
§ LORD ARNOLDI would appeal strongly to the noble Earl on the Woolsack, at any rate for the time being to withdraw his Motion so that we could have a statement on the main question. I am not quite clear that that can be 541 done, but I do not think there is any insuperable difficulty in adjusting the various points which will arise in connection with this matter. If that is so it would be for the convenience of various persons and of noble Lords if we could ultimately come to a decision on the Second Reading this afternoon. Therefore, if I might, I would appeal to the noble Earl on the Woolsack at any rate to withdraw his Notion for the adjournment for the time being and permit me to make a statement on the Second Reading. Then, if he wishes to take any other step, of course he can do so.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy only anxiety would be to facilitate your Lordships' business. I have been put in the position of making an opposed Motion, which is not part of my duty. If I withdraw my Motion for the adjournment I am simply in the position of having made a Motion and being placed in the Division Lobby in the position of appearing on behalf of the promoters, which I do not.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)My Lords, you would no doubt be very glad to hear from Lord Arnold any reasons to show why this debate should take place immediately, but if he has no such strong reason I think he would see that your Lordships are almost bound to follow the wishes of the Lord Chairman in a matter of this kind. The Lord Chairman does not take a polemical part in these Bills and his Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill would be entirely out of place had he been aware that it was going to be an opposed Bill. He, therefore, very naturally wishes to put himself right with the House and also with the traditions of his office and retire from the position of the Peer responsible for moving the Second Reading. He has taken the only course which he could take, which is to move the adjournment of the debate. The proper procedure, of course, is to allow the debate to be adjourned accordingly. If Lord Arnold makes a statement on merits, then we should have to go into the whole thing and there would have to be answers and counter answers and the very thing would take place which the Lord Chairman now wishes to avoid. If Lord Arnold has some very strong reason why his statement should be made to-night 542 rather than any other night, no doubt he will make that clear, but in the absence of any such argument from the noble Lord I should feel bound to support the Lord Chairman in his Motion for the adjournment.
THE EARL OF MEATHMy Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding. I have absolutely withdrawn all opposition in consequence of the satisfactory statement which I have had and also in consequence of what Lord Arnold has said.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREIf the noble Lord does not wish to press his opposition to my Motion then, of course, I would at once ask the permission of the House to withdraw my Motion for the adjournment.
Motion for the adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIn that event, of course, if we are to treat this Bill as an unopposed Bill there is no reason why it should not go forward.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI suggest that the proper course now is for us to agree to suspend Standing Order No. 91, which will allow us to read the Bill a second time, and then I will make the Motion for the Second Reading, and the statement of Lord Arnold, which, I know, is anticipated by several of your Lordships, can be made.
§ On Question, Motion to suspend Standing Order No. 91 agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, I now move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ LORD ARNOLDMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl and the Lord Chairman for facilitating this matter. I cannot say that there is any imperative reason why the Second Reading should take place this afternoon, but your Lordships are aware of the position with regard to this Bill. Everything is ready for the Second Reading to take place, and I believe any differences can be adjusted. Lord Meath indicated broadly the reasons which obtain for desiring to pass this Bill, which does mean an alteration in the Act of 1918. That Act 543 provided that one-half of the site of St. Olave's Church and churchyard should be vested in the Bermondsey Borough Council, to be used as an open space, though the Church was to be demolished, only the tower remaining; the other half was ordered to be sold, and the proceeds were to be vested in Southwark Diocesan Trust Fund, to be used for the purpose of erecting churches in newly developed areas in South London. That was in 1918.
Now I come to the first of the points which were made by the noble Earl. He suggested, indeed more than suggested, he affirmed, that the Bermondsey Borough Council has done nothing to comply with its obligations, and I think he gave the impression that there had been delay which could have been avoided, and that the Council should have avoided it. But the facts are these. This half of the site which was to be sold is very small in area; it is only about one-sixth of an acre in extent, and it is not in a part which would be very much needed by large numbers of people. It took years to effect a satisfactory sale of this half of the site which was to be disposed of. Further, I want to make it clear that this sale had to be effected by trustees under the Act of 1918, and not by the Bermondsey Borough Council at all. Trustees were appointed, and it was their business, and I have no reason to suppose that they were unwilling, but it took time. I understand that the half of the site was offered at auction in 1921, and I presume no satisfactory bid was obtained. Finally, about 1925, the matter was concluded in this way. The trustees came to terms with the proprietors of Hay's Wharf for the sale of this half of the site; though for various reasons the conveyance was not completed for some tune; it was not actually completed, I think, until 1927.
So far as the Bermondsey Borough Council are concerned they did not come into actual possession of their half of the site until the autumn of 1926. Prior to coming into possession of it they had commenced to take steps to comply with their obligations under the Act. It was then that they began to realise all the drawbacks and disadvantages connected with this place as an open space, and the great expense involved. The fact is, 544 that this so-called open space has really become unsuitable for anything of the kind. There are now no children left within easy access of it. As I have said, it is less than one-sixth of an acre in extent, and when certain buildings are completed it will be shut in between high walls, almost tunnelled in, and will be sunless. Not only so, but it is in an area where traffic is very congested, and this traffic congestion problem has become much accentuated since 1918 when the original Act was passed. These considerations greatly impressed the Ministry of Transport, who had come on to the scene in connection with the sale of the half of the site to Hay's Wharf. They had come on the scene, and it is really true to say that the proposals of this Bill originated, in the first place, in discussion, I think, between the Ministry of Transport and the representative of Hay's Wharf, and not with the Council.
Your Lordships might ask what the Ministry of Transport has to do with the matter. I have already explained that there is great traffic congestion in this area down Tooley Street, and that is where the Ministry of Transport conic in. It is their duty to see to these things when they can, and they wish to relieve the situation. The proposal now is to sell the second half of this St. Olave's site to Hay's Wharf, who are prepared to buy the second half. They bought the first half for somewhere about £10,000, and they are prepared to buy the second part for, I think it is, £10,000, and it is proposed to acquire another open space elsewhere. To that I will come in a moment. Hay's Wharf are prepared, not only to buy this half of the site for £10,000, but to utilise the ground area as a parking place for motor vehicles. They will erect a building on the half of the site which they buy; but the first floor will be so high up that motor vehicles can be parked on the ground floor—on the part which will be built over. I understand that the experts of the Ministry of Transport state that altogether in this ground area, which, as I say, will be covered by buildings and above which the first storey will be very high, 100 motor vehicles can be accommodated, and that that will be a great help in relieving the terrible traffic congestion down Tooley Street.
545 I come now to the question of the alternative site. It would not be proposed to do this unless a good open space could be obtained, and obtained in a suitable position. That can be done about a quarter of a mile away—very near—but in a very much better area, which is close to children and with residences practically, I understand, abutting on it. It is in the heart of a densely crowded area in Bermondsey. This is an open space, not of one-sixth of an acre, but of more than an acre in extent—six times as large as the space which it is now sought to sell to Hay's Wharf. This space, which I will call the Tanner Street site, is the site of an old warehouse which has been demolished. Half of it already belongs to the Bermondsey Borough Council, and the Bermondsey Borough Council is prepared to give that half for the open space. That means a considerable sacrifice on the part of the Council because the rateable value of this area would be substantial; but they are prepared to give it as an open space, it the remaining half can be secured. This remaining half belongs to certain trustees, who have had, I believe, a bid of £8,000 for it, and the Bermondsey Council can procure it for that amount—£8,000. Very briefly, the proposal comes to this—that half of the St. Olave's site, which is quite useless in any proper sense of the word for a recreation ground or open space, shall be sold and be available as a parking space, which will be of great benefit to the neighbourhood. Instead, this alternative site (which I repeat is about one acre in extent) shall be made available for an open space.
With regard to the finance of the matter, the position stands in this way. The half-site will be sold for £10,000. Certain human remains will have to be removed and other things will have to be done, and of the net proceeds, the representatives of the church will be entitled to 25 per cent.; that money is to be available, I understand, for the erection, or to help in the erection, of new churches where they are needed in the area of which I have spoken. Of course, these figures cannot be precise, but, speaking broadly, I think the net proceeds will be somewhere about £6,000. The church will get £1,500 and the Bermondsey Council will get £4,500 towards the expense of buying and laying out the half-site of the 546 Tanner Street proposed open space. Altogether it is estimated that the cost of buying—I say the price is about £8,000—laying out, fencing and so forth, will be, in total, about £11,000.
Now this project is entirely favoured—I think I may say it is favoured, speaking broadly — by the Metropolitan Gardens Association, which is very kindly endeavouring to obtain donations from some of its wealthy supporters towards the cost of the lay-out of the new area. The National Playing Field Fund is also recommending a grant for the purpose. It is hoped also to get help from other sources, so as to make the amount which would be available up to about £8,000. That is, £4,500 of the net proceeds which the Council will get, and these various other sources, it is hoped, will bring the sum up to about £8,000. That will leave a balance of somewhere about £3,000 to be found, in order to reach the figure of £11,000 which I have named. That amount will be found by the Bermondsey Council.
On that point I may say, as regards the St. Olave's half-site, suppose, that were to be kept as an open space the Council would be involved in an expenditure of more than the sum I have mentioned, because various things would have to be done, including making the river wall safe, which, I think, is estimated to cost between £3,000 and £4,000. Perhaps the cost would be more than that because once you begin that kind of thing, as your Lordships know, the tendency is for estimates to prove to be too low. Therefore, even on the old proposition, the Bermondsey Council would have to find a sum somewhat larger than this £3,000. Consequently the finance presents no real difficulties and, having regard to what would be achieved, I say it is fair to represent this as a very good proposition for the people of Bermondsey, who, after all, are the chief people concerned. It seems to me that what would be gained is infinitely greater than anything which would be lost, and in those circumstances I am very much hoping that this Bill will go through without opposition.
But there is one matter about which I want to say a word or two before I sit down and it is on the question of the historical associations of this half-site. About that the late Lord Bryce, 547 in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House in 1918, said something. It is the case that the neighbourhood has historical associations but there really is no great historical value in this particular one-sixth of an acre with which we are dealing. So far as the neighbourhood is concerned, I think there are two buildings in the vicinity which have tablets commemorating the historical interests of the sites on which those buildings are constructed and in this Bill, in order to safeguard everything which can reasonably be safeguarded, there is a provision in Clause 7, subsection (3) which says that:—
As soon as practicable after the completion of the said sale and purchase the purchasers shall to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council provide and fix or erect upon some part of the scheduled lands and at all times thereafter maintain and whenever necessary renew a tablet or other structure or fitting containing a record of the former ecclesiastical and historical associations of the scheduled lands.
§ VISCOUNT PEELMay I interrupt the noble Lord? He referred to the tower. I thought the tower was to be preserved.
§ LORD ARNOLDNo, not under this Bill. I am coming to that very point. I have something to say about the tower which. I think, will be satisfactory to the noble Viscount. On the point of the record which has to be placed, it seems to me that it must have a wider application than to this particular one-sixth of an acre. What actually exists upon this one-sixth of an acre is the tower of the church. It had to be left under the Act of 1918. The remainder of the church was demolished. This tower is of no great antiquity. It is, I think, late 18th century and it has no real historical value and has no artistic value. Perhaps I may be permitted here to quote to your Lordships what the base Lord Curzon said on this point in 1918, when he made some very trenchant remarks. He then said:—
Nor, again, am I very much interested in the preservation of the tower alone. The tower has no beauty apart from the church; it has uncommon little with it, and apart from the church it will have absolutely none at all. To take down the church and invite the people of Bermondsey to sit, with the wharf on one side and a few tombstones on the other, to enjoy a quiet summer afternoon with this miserable relic looming in the air behind—I would not condemn anybody to a penalty so extreme.I think I may leave the tower there.548 I should like to say a word or two on the specific points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Meath. He was anxious that an Amendment should be inserted that the matter should be carried through and the new open space be ready, as I understood, within two years. It was three years that were originally proposed, I think, but now he wants to come down to two years. If he insists on that I understand that those who are promoting this scheme are prepared to meet him. It really largely, or in some degree, depends upon how long it would take to remove certain human remains. That is a matter for the church. The Council are prepared to have the two years put in. Then the noble Earl wants a provision put in about the maintenance of the open space. The Bermondsey Borough Council is prepared to satisfy him on that point. Did the noble Earl raise a third point, or were those two points his only ones?
§ LORD ARNOLDWe are prepared to meet the noble Earl on both those points. Although the matter is a complicated one and presents some difficulty, I submit that the case for the Bill is an overwhelming one. Instead of this really quite useless small site, a good open space, more than six times as large, will be secured and all the finance and so forth can be arranged in the way I have indicated. It seems to me that there is really very little that can be said against the Bill. To suggest, as has been done, that the historical considerations, especially when some of them are of rather doubtful validity, should outweigh the clear public advantage of this scheme is, I submit, to advance a contention which is quite mistaken. I have done my best to deal with the points which are sufficiently important to place before your Lordships. There are certain minor points which I could bring in to reinforce my case, but I think it is not necessary to do so. I trust that the measure will receive a Second Reading from your Lordships. I should like to add that it is supported by the Metropolitan Gardens Association and by the National Playing Fields Fund and that it is not opposed by any public body. The Attorney-General, in his Report, 549 concludes by saying: "I see no objection to the Bill." I submit, therefore, that the case for the Bill is very strong.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, referred to the Ministry of Transport and I only got up really to confirm from that point of view what the noble Lord has said. Confining my observations, for the moment, to the point of view of the Ministry of Transport, I would say that this would be a very valuable public improvement and would relieve the density of traffic and any congestion that there is around the wharves. I also want to say one word from the point of view of the Office of Works, which does not always coincide with the point of view of the Ministry of Transport. If there was really any very grave and marked æsthetical value in what may be destroyed, I should naturally, though I should possibly be overborne, make a strong protest against it. I think that it has been the practice of the Office of Works not, if possible, to press the æsthetical considerations too far if they conflict with very important public interests and public improvements. I think I am relieved from doing it in this case, because I think the æsthetical considerations are, as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has said, not of very high value. There are very many cases where I should press those considerations very strongly indeed, but I do not think this is a case of that kind, having regard to the public improvement, and I hope the Bill will go through.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, before the vote is taken may I say two things to your Lordships? The first is that I think it most desirable that this matter should be carefully explained to your Lordships in view of the proceedings in 1918. The Bill was then discussed thoroughly. The noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, took a great interest in it and the Third Reading debate makes very good reading because it shows how distinguished people can differ in reaching an ideal solution, a solution which this Bill now seeks to extend. But I am very glad to hear what the noble Viscount said as representing the Ministry of Transport. For myself, looking at 550 the matter from a less professional point of view, I am bound to say that I think this Bill embodies a public improvement and therefore I hope it will be read a second time. I would only say one thing in conclusion, in regard to a remark of the noble Viscount. He said, I think, that this tower is not worth preserving on æsthetic grounds.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI did not quite say that. It does not matter, but what I really did say was that it was not of such great æsthetic importance that I should desire to obstruct a public improvement in order to preserve it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI am glad the noble Viscount called attention to that consideration, because on the last occasion we had the advantage of a speech from the late Marquess Curzon of Kedleston in which he characterised the church as a bad example of a decadent and uninteresting style. I think your Lordships may like to be reminded of that.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.