ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 03 February 1931 vol 79 cc747-99

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETABA OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)

LORD ARMSTRONG had given Notice that on the Motion to go into Committee, he would move, That the Order of the 11th of December, 1930, referring the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House be discharged; and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with leave to hear parties interested by themselves, their counsel, agents and witnesses so far as the Committee think fit. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name, that the Bill shall be referred to a Select Committee instead of a Committee of the Whole House and that the Order of December 11, 1930, be discharged. The ground on which this Amendment is moved is that persons whose interests are principally affected by the Bill at the moment are desirous of proposing a clause of a technical character for the protection of their rights which would be inappropriate for a Committee of the Whole House.

The Bill has been promoted at the present time largely owing to the public interest that has been aroused by the proposal to open the whinstone quarry near the site of the Roman Wall in Northumberland. Hadrian's celebrated wall originally stretched from the Tyne to the Solway, and in most places the wall has been destroyed and the evidence of the vellum is very faint. There is a considerable stretch of wall, however, which is in a good state of preservation and is properly protected and looked after. The point at which the quarrying is proposed to take place is thirty-five miles west of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and several miles from the well-preserved portion of the wall, and, in fact, in the area where it is proposed to quarry the Roman Wall itself has entirely disappeared, although there are still traces of the vellum. Mr. J. C. Wake, of Dar- lington, has been interested for many years in the possible quarrying of the whinstone from the outcrop of the Great Whin Sill near the site of the wall. Exhaustive experimental tests have been made with this whinstone and it has been found that it is one of the finest, if not the finest bed of whinstone in the country. As your Lordships know, whinstone is a very hard basaltic rock and is one of the best materials for the making of roads. The whinstone beds here available are very extensive, and if the quarry is opened here employment will be given to a large number of men for very many years to come.

Mr. Wake, who has taken a lease from Sir Hugh Blackett, the owner of the land, with the object of quarrying, and his friends have already spent a considerable sum in connection with the enterprise. Mr. Wake has been in communication with the Office of Works for many months, and in view of the interest taken by the public in the possible damage to the amenities of the wall, the First Commissioner of Works visited the site last summer and had conversations with Mr. Wake, the local archaeological society and others. Subsequently, correspondence took place between Mr. Wake and the Office of Works with regard to the restrictions under which he should be placed in working the quarry. Mr. Wake has taken immense trouble to get out designs and diagrams in order to show where he proposes to quarry, how and where he proposes to erect his machinery and buildings, the type of machinery he proposes to employ, and the methods he proposes to adopt in working. These matters have, of course, taken considerable time.

Unfortunately, during the last two or three months, Mr. Wake has been prevented by the very serious illness of his wife from devoting attention to this matter. While he was thus prevented from completing the negotiations, the Bill was introduced. In those circumstances it would appear to be equitable that Mr. Wake's position should be safeguarded against any provision which might be inserted in the Bill, and which might be inconsistent with an arrangement which he is desirous of making with the Office of Works and which it is believed the Office of Works would be prepared to concede. This, obviously, is a matter that cannot be discussed in Committee of the Whole House, and the proper course would seem to be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, which is the appropriate tribunal of this House to consider Bills which affect the interests of private persons. If this course were taken, it would be analogous to the procedure which was adopted when the Ancient Monuments Bill of 1912 was introduced. That Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, which was empowered to send for papers, persons and records and also to examine witnesses.

Mr. Wake and Messrs. William Shepherd & Sons, Ltd., who are associated with him in the venture, are prepared to put forward a clause for insertion in the Bill which, in the first place, would limit their operations, including mining as well as quarrying, to an area defined in the clause. Secondly, it would make it clear that the quarrying shall not take place within a certain distance of the site of the Bemoan Wall in their neighbourhood, which, as I have already explained, has in this area entirely disappeared. Thirdly, it would limit the height above ground to which may be raised buildings and machinery so as not to interfere unduly with the view. Fourthly, it would limit the positions in which they may place the rope-way, which is an essential part of the scheme, for conveying the whinstone from the quarry to the Newcastle and Carlisle road. Lastly, it would fix the position of the road giving access from the quarry to the main Newcastle and Carlisle road.

All these matters are of the utmost importance to these gentlemen, who have been always anxious to respect the susceptibilities of the public, and they suggest that the proposals they are making are of the most reasonable character. They will be prepared to put before the Select Committee all details that the Committee might require, in order to judge of the reasonableness or otherwise of the protection suggested and all other information that the Committee might wish to have afforded to them. I have heard since from the agents to Mr. Wake and his friends that they have had an interview this morning with Sir Lionel Earle and other representatives of the Office of Works and the Office of Works have agreed to sign a map showing the area within which Mr. Wake may operate. They have also indicated that there is likely to be little difficulty over agreeing the height to which the buildings and machinery may be erected and about the position of the rope-way. There appear to be difficulties about the distance from the site of the Roman Wall to which the quarry is to be restricted, and this point would have to be further examined, but. Mr. Wake is prepared to leave this matter for agreement between himself and the Office of Works. There also appears to be some difficulty about the road giving access from the Newcastle and Carlisle road to the quarry, but again this is a matter which must be left for settlement with the Office of Works. I understand that this memorandum will meet the views of Mr. Wake and his friends, so that on their part I have nothing more to say, but I also understand that there are other wide and grave issues—many of a technical character—connected with the Bill. Therefore, I still think it desirable that the Bill should go through a Select Committee and I beg to move accordingly.

Amendment moved— Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("the Order of the 11th December, 1930, referring the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House be discharged; and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with leave to hear parties interested by themselves, their counsel, agents and witnesses so far as the Committee think fit.")—(Lords Armstrong)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

My Lords, the proposal made by the noble Lord is one Which I am afraid cannot be acceded to by the Government. May I first of all deal with the general question of referring a Bill of this sort to a Select Committee? It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that the Bill of 1912 was referred to a Select Committee, but that Committee was not empowered to examine witnesses. That Bill was of an entirely different nature. There was considerable doubt as to how to proceed and it was felt that the whole matter should be fully investigated before a Bill was drafted. In this case there is no doubt in people's minds with regard to the necessity of this particular Bill and it would not be at all a fit matter for a Select Committee. The noble Lord before he sat down did admit that Mr. Wake—who, I think, was inclined to press for a Select Committee in the first instance—had been satisfied with his interview with the Office of Works, and that he felt that an agreement with them on the various points which the noble Lord mentioned could be amicably reached, and that there would be no need for any other arrangement. I think the noble Lord will realise that it would he impossible to make an exception in this case. It would be impossible to introduce a particular clause in a particular instance. Otherwise we should find ourselves in a very difficult position. Considering that Mr. Wake, in all negotiations conducted with him, has assumed an extremely reasonable attitude and has been always ready to accede to requests made to him, I cannot see that there is any justification for taking this unusual course. In any case I fear that His Majesty's Government cannot agree to the Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

My Lords, as an unfortunate individual in whose charge there are a considerable number of Amendments to this Bill I should like to support the noble Lord's Amendment to the utmost of my ability. This Bill has the favourable consideration of a large majority of your Lordships' House. It is desired to enable those people who love ancient monuments, or rather those people who love historical and beautiful things, to obtain enjoyment. The Bill also affects—and affects possibly very severely—the rights of property owners, both great and small, in many thousands. I think that while you wish, and I know you all wish, to give effect to the enjoyment of that first class of people, you would not wish in any way to inflict injustice on the other class. This is a highly technical Bill. I have spent a great many hours considering it, and the people I represent have done the same, and I cannot for one moment say that I feel I have got to the bottom of it yet. There are clauses in it which are connected with compensation, there are clauses in it which are connected with that abstruse subject betterment, there are clauses which I feel certainly require legal advice if we are to do the best possible in connection with the Bill. I therefore venture to hope that your Lordships will agree to this reasonable proposal, as I cannot but think it is, and that you will accede to the Amendment of the noble Lord to commit this Bill to a Select Committee.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I beg to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. The smaller property owners in this country are filled with consternation at the provisions of the Bill. The Bill simply bristles with difficulties, as my noble friend has said. We have carefully considered the Bill and agree with my noble friend that it is more suitable for a Select Committee than for a Committee of the Whole House. If the Bill is sent to a Select Committee that will not preclude your Lordships from further amending it on re-commitment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, will press his Amendment to a Division.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, I should like to support what has just been said. A particular instance has been given in regard to this part of the Roman Wall and I understand from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that they have had to make special arrangements in order, apparently, to facilitate the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. If an instance of that kind has arisen in this particular case many similar instances are bound to arise in future, and the owner or contractor, or whoever might be concerned, would have no redress because there would be no power to bring pressure to bear. Of course, we are all generally in favour of preserving ancient monuments, but it is possible that that may be carried a little too far. Whilst people are very keen about preserving ancient monuments, apparently they do not mind how much beauty is destroyed by the many appalling buildings put up by local authorities, or how many beautiful districts of the country are spoiled by new roads.

As regards the schedule, it is not altogether a success. Suppose a building is scheduled. First of all, a number of people—very likely busybodies—go to the Commission on Ancient Monuments and then to the Office of Works who schedule a monument. I know that certain monuments have been scheduled and that means that the power over each of these monuments is taken out of the hands of the owner. In such a case he will say that he is not going to spend any more money on it if they like to take it off his hands and say that he is not fit to look after it. He will say that some one else can do it. I admit that, where the Office of Works has taken these monuments over, the thing has been extraordinarily well done, as I know from my own experience; and they are easy to get on with and very reasonable. But this Bill is so complicated and raises so many large questions which it is difficult to discuss in Committee of the Whole House, that I hope your Lordships will agree to my noble friend's Amendment. There is probably no urgency, except in the particular case that has been mentioned, in which it should be quite easy to make the necessary arrangements. The bulk of the monuments of this country should be completely protected already under previous legislation. I hope that your Lordships will vote for the Amendment of my noble friend behind me.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. This Bill has the support of practically every learned society in the country, and of practically every person interested in art, architecture and archaeology, and all these persons are very anxious to see the Bill pass as soon as possible. Whatever the effect of sending the Bill to a Select Committee may be, it is quite certain that its passage will be considerably delayed. I have done my best to study the Bill, and I agree that in certain respects its provisions need amendment, but I do not think it is outside the competence of your Lordships' House to deal with it in Committee in the usual way.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I confess that I find myself in some little difficulty. I must begin by making an apology to your Lordships if I say something that is already well known, but I was unfortunately not here when the. Second Reading was taken. On the face of the Bill I think there is no doubt that it only carries a little bit further the provisions of the Act for which I had the honour of being responsible before the War. Nobody looking at the Bill can pretend that its provisions depart to any great extent from the principles of the Act which your Lordships passed. On that occasion much, I think, was introduced into the Bill that prevented it being quite as useful as it might have been, but that is by the way. I accept entirely what was done by Parliament on the last occasion. It seems to me that we are tending to mix up two things in this discussion—one, the Roman Wall, and the other, the general question of this Bill. I must say that I hope that, so far as the Bill is concerned, it may go forward. As I said, it is simply an extension of the principles already agreed to by both Houses of Parliament and, as the noble Lord who has just spoken reminded your Lordships, it is generally wanted by learned societies. That being so, I hope it may be allowed to go forward.

In regard to the question of the Roman Wall, this seems to be just an example of the difficulty of bringing forward particular instances in order to deal with general principles. You get the two mixed up together. I think there is a great deal to be said for the question of the Roman Wall being treated by a Committee of your Lordships' House, as I think can be done under the Act already in existence. This is where I want to make an apology to your Lordships, not being quite sure as to the state of the law in regard to anything that is done by a Preservation Order becoming, on the request of parties interested, subject to inquiry. If that is possible, it seems to me that we ought to confine our attention to the possibility of inquiry by a special Committee on this point, while allowing the Bill as a whole to go forward. I confess that this seems to me to be the best course for your Lordships to adopt—namely to allow the Bill to go forward in Committee of the Whole House, where any necessary Amendments may be made, and then, if special inquiry is necessary regarding the Roman Wall, to allow it to take place under the provisions that already exist.

TUE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD)

My Lords, I have to apologise for the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House, owing to ill health. I want merely to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, whatever feeling there may be in favour of referring this Bill to a Select Committee, or to a Joint Committee of both Houses, the very definite effect of doing that would he to prevent the passage of the Bill during the present Session. As has been suggested by a noble Lord opposite, that would be a very severe disappointment to a good many people who are professionally concerned with these ancient monuments and have seen with regret how very little use it has been possible to make of existing legislation on the subject, as Lord Beauchamp pointed out. I think your Lordships should think twice before taking this step, which will quite definitely mean the loss of the Bill, at any rate for the present Session.

It has been suggested that the Bill is highly technical, but I suggest to your Lordships that this is hardly the case. If you compare it, for instance, with Town Planning legislation, though it has called forth a number of Amendments, it is easier for the lay intelligence—I speak for myself—to understand, and it can he dealt with quite satisfactorily by the not very large assembly of your Lordships' House in Committee. Really the present measure consists entirely of a simplified application of the Town Planning procedure to a particular case, and the notion that thousands of schemes will come forward under this Bill is, I think, quite a mistake. That is shown by the experience of the legislation which your Lordships have already passed with regard to ancient monuments. It is not everybody who is going to run about and try to get every little dyke, barrow or ruin scheduled as an ancient monument. It is not quite so easy as it may seem to get that done, and I think there is no danger of an enormous number of applications being made.

I come back to the point. If this Bill is referred to a Select Committee it is almost certain that it will be killed for this Session. If your Lordships feel that, at this period of the Session with time at your disposal, you can give serious consideration to the Amendments, numerous as they may be, that are upon the Paper, it would be possible to repair the shortcomings of the existing legislation in a way that is, I think, the almost universal desire of those who occupy themselves with this question, while it really will not confront us with any technical problems of property and so on with which your Lordships cannot deal.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, the subject of ancient monuments has been discussed by your Lordships so often during the last ten or fifteen years that I imagine that there are few Peers present who are not pretty familiar with the various aspects of this problem. I really do not think that your Lordships, as a whole, will gain any fresh information from the researches of a Select Committee. I think we understand the subject quite well enough already to take upon ourselves the responsibility of proceeding with this Bill. Unless I am very much mistaken, no really new problem is likely to be sprung upon us during the process of the Committee stage and, so far as I am concerned, I shall support the Government in this matter.

EARL PEEL

My Lords, I should like to say one word on this Amendment, because, like my noble friends who have spoken, I am one of those ex-First Commissioners of Works of whom there is such a magnificent array in this House. I was rather struck by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, because I should be very sorry if this Bill, by going upstairs, were lost for this Session. I regard this as a good Bill. I think it is the only good Bill, if I may say so, that this Government have introduced, and therefore I think it would be unfortunate if there were any danger of killing the one useful and valuable measure that they have brought in. I have listened with great respect and interest to the remarks of my noble friends behind me about some of the difficulties of the Bill and the question of private rights. I agree that if any serious question of injustice were arising it would be much better that it should be sent upstairs and examined, but I think we are a pretty competent body to deal with the matter on the floor of the House. There are no fewer than four ex-Commissioners of Works in this House, and if they cannot give some advice on these technical points to other noble Lords I really do not know who can. They must have been very incompetent Commissioners of Works if they cannot do it.

We have dealt with these Bills before, and I should like to point out that there is really a very small extension in this Bill of the powers of the Commissioners of Works in dealing with certain amenities around these ancient monuments. I think that your Lordships' House is capable of dealing with the points as they arise. I rather like the free arena of this House, where we can all take part in the debate, and I think a great many noble Lords who have a great deal of knowledge of the subject would be precluded, if we sent the Bill upstairs, from giving their advice. I am very sensible indeed of the argument used by noble Lords behind me, but so far as I am concerned I hope that we

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Schemes for preserving amenities of ancient monuments.

1.—(1) For the purpose of preserving the amenities of any ancient monument, the Commissioners may, subject to the provisions of this section, prepare and confirm a scheme (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a preservation scheme") for any area comprising or adjacent to the site of the monument, being an area to which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it is necessary or expedient for that purpose that the scheme should apply.

(2) Every preservation scheme shall define by reference to a map annexed thereto the area to which the scheme is applicable (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the controlled area") and may provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

shall deal with the Bill in Committee of the Whole House.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left oat shall stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Devonport, V.	Marley, L. [Teller.]
	Hailsham, V.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Beauchamp, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Noel-Buxton, L.
Bradford, E.		Passfield, L.
De La Warr, E.	Ullswater, V.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Denbigh, E.		Raglan, L.
	Southwark, L. Bp.
Lucan, E.	Truro, L. Bp.	Rochester, L.
Peel, E.		Sanderson, L.
Radnor, E.	Amulree, L.	Sempill, L.
Spencer, E.	Annaly, L.	Stanmore, L.
Stanhope, E.	Arnold, L.	Stonehaven, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Clwyd, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
	Danesfort, L.	Teynham, L.
Astor, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]	Trenchard, L.
Brentford, V.		Treowen, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Kinnaird, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.
Exeter, M.	Chaplin, V.	Desborough, L.
Linlithgow, M.	Churchill, V.	Dynevor, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Doverdale, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Hereford, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
		Greenway, L.
Iveagh, E.	Armstrong, L. [Teller.]	Lawrence, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Askwith, L.	Redosdale, L.
Midleton, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Sandys, L.
Onslow, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Templemore, L.
	Cranworth, L.	Wharton, L.
Bortie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

(a) for prohibiting or restricting the construction, erection, execution, alteration or extension of buildings, structures and other works within the controlled area;

(c) for prohibiting or restricting the felling of trees, quarrying and excavations within the controlled area;

(d) for otherwise restricting the user of land within the controlled area to such extent as may appear to the Commissioners to be expedient for the purpose of preserving the amenities of the monument;

(e) for payment of compensation, subject to the provisions of this Act, to persons whose property is injuriously affected by the scheme;

(d) for much other matters as appear to the Commissioners to he incidental to or consequential on the foregoing provisions of this section to be necessary for giving effect to those provisions.

(5) If any person contravenes any provision of a preservation scheme for the time being in force, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (1), after "amenities," to insert "or features of interest." The noble Lord said: I am not sure whether this Amendment has the real legal effect, but it seems to me to make rather clearer what the powers and functions of the Commissioners are. In some cases it is necessary to cut down trees and dig trenches and do other things which absolutely destroy rather than preserve the amenities, especially in the case of large sites—Roman sites and British camps. I think that if this Amendment were inserted it might perhaps make it clearer that the Commissioners have power to do these things.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, after ("amenities") insert. ("or features of interest").—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I quite appreciate the noble Lord's intention, but I really do not think his Amendment is necessary. The object of a preservation scheme would be to preserve the amenities of a monument; that is to say, its setting and the features of interest in its surroundings, not its own features of interest. That does not come in under this clause, so I do not think that the addition of these words, which seem to apply to the monument itself, would be advisable at this point.

LORD RAGLAN

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or" and to insert "the land." The noble Lord said: As I understand it the monument itself is at present governed by Clause 6 of the Act of 1913, and this Bill I understand to refer merely to the land in the immediate vicinity. I think it was so stated in the Second Reading debate. At all events it appears to be so from the OFFICIAL REPORT. Perhaps this has slipped in by mistake and I think the Amendment which I propose would give effect to what I understood was the original object of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, leave out ("or") and insert ("the land").—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I do not know whether the noble Lord is moving this Amendment in conjunction with the Amendment to the next line which appears in his name—the question of fixing the distance. But with regard to the Amendment as it stands, it might exclude the actual site of the monument over which it might be desirable to have some sort of control in the scheme, especially if the monument were under the control of the Office of Works. Therefore it really is undesirable to alter the words here and I prefer not to accept this Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am not entirely satisfied, but I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved in subsection (1), after the second "monument," to insert "for a distance of not more than 200 yards from the lateral extremities of such site." The noble Lord said: I think we shall all be agreed that there must be some limits within which this country can be turned into a museum of places of historical interest. I am not particularly anxious with regard to the exact limit of 200 yards, but I think there must be some limit. If the noble Lord would suggest some other distance I should be satisfied, but I think 200 yards affords a reasonable distance.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, after ("monument") insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope the Government will consider inserting some words such as these. Personally, I think 200 yards is rather too far. As my noble friend says we do not want the country turned into a sort of preserve for ancient monuments to the detriment of everything else, and it is giving a great deal too much power to the gentlemen who will become the Commissioners. I object to these Commissioners having all these powers.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It would be very undesirable to have any restrictive distance placed in the Bill, whether 200 yards or more. Two hundred yards would obviously be absolutely useless in such cases as Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall, and in other cases it might be excessive. A matter of this sort must be left to the discretion of the Commissioners who are not likely to take more land than they want as they would very likely have to pay heavy compensation, and their object being all the time to preserve the amenities around the monument in question. For that purpose any specific number of yards could not be accepted.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment. Without it you are giving powers to the Commissioners which are really too absurd. You might have a monument at the top of a high hill and the Commissioners might put the whole county in the scheme. I have an Amendment which sets the limit at 100 feet, which I should have thought sufficient, but I will not press that. But 200 yards is ample. If the distance is unrestricted it will probably lead to many abuses in the future. It is absurd to leave it to the Commissioners to say they can schedule any area they like. I think my family has probably done as much towards preserving monuments as anyone else, but there are people who go to absurd lengths in these matters. They do not care what is sacrificed, so long as their particular plan is carried out. It might be said that the Commissioners can be relied upon, but that is what we are told in every Bill—"Trust the Government!" I do not trust any Government, from whatever Party it is drawn. There must be some protection for the private individual. This is a very moderate Amendment, and I am surprised that the Government have not accepted it.

LORD NOEL-BUXTON

I cannot help thinking that the Amendment, while apparently dealing with a very small point, might virtually destroy the value of the Bill in regard to some of the most important cases with which the Bill is intended to deal. It seems to me so urgent that this Amendment should not he passed that I feel myself fortunate to make a maiden speech upon it, and I ask the indulgence of the House in doing so. I do it as one of those who were members of the Select Committee of 1912. One learnt then the great extent of cases where monuments of priceless value were being destroyed from year to year, if not in themselves, by their surroundings.

I do beg your Lordships to consider the deplorable situation which might arise it this Amendment were embodied in the Bill. The public might become immensely interested in some conspicuous case. Time would be shown to have been given to legislation, and Parliament itself would be almost stultified if it appeared after that that some case of immense value had not been provided for, but had been apparently overlooked. Take any case that comes to mind, the great monument to Marlborough or Carnarvon Castle itself, where an immense amount of public money has been spent. To emasculate the Bill in this way it seems to me would really show indifference on the part of Parliament to the urgency of the whole cause of the protection of valuable monuments, which in other countries would be shocking to public opinion and tradition. We are already far behind Italy, France and other countries in our activity in preserving monuments, and we are really responsible to a great extent for the reputation of the country in regard to its cultural interests. I hope that the Government will firmly resist the Amendment.

LORD ASKWITH

I should be sorry indeed to see this Amendment passed. It seems to me that what was said by the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench is, perfectly fair. He has cited Stonehenge, Hadrian's Wall, Verulam and you might say Silchester or any Roman camp; even. Dover Castle may be handed over. You might want something more than 200 yards. There must be elasticity. There would be a tremendous row if an excessive amount was taken, but it would be a most reasonable thing to give them fair control over this matter, and with regard certainly to the monuments in the country they should not be confined by an absolute line drawn to an inch beyond which they cannot possibly go.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

It seems to me that this is one of the points in regard to which the Select Committee might have done valuable work. It really is a new point and one which, I think, it is impossible to settle in the manner suggested by my noble friend behind me. As it stands I think that the proposal in the Bill is the only one which you can carry out. It may be that in particular cases where 200 feet was too much or too little it would have been easy, perhaps, to frame an Amendment; but as it stands it would be impossible really to include this Amendment in the Bill and make it workable.

LORD CRANWORTH

After hearing what has been said, I think, with the leave of the House, I shall withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My next Amendment [to limit the distance to 100 feet] is covered by the last.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "erection," to insert "or" and leave out. "alteration or extension." The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands now it would, if I understand aright, prevent the adaptation of any farm or business premises internally. I do not think that can be the intention of the Bill. If you had a beautiful building and you kept up the structure you ought not to be prevented from making use of it internally. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, after ("erection") insert ("or") and leave out ("alteration or extension").—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am prepared to accept this Amendment and the consequential one in line 25, as I think they make the position clearer.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does that satisfy the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, who has an Amendment in between those two?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Yes, it is the same. That, however, does not apply to the second one.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "works," to insert. "above ground." The noble Duke said: I do not know whether the Government will accept this Amendment. Obviously, though a building above ground may need protection, there is no reason why that should apply to anything below ground.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 24, after ("works") insert ("above ground").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (2) "or the alteration or extension of any such buildings, structures or works in such manner as materially to affect their external character." The noble Lord said: This is the same point as that raised in the last Amendment I moved.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 25, after ("area") insert the said new words.—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Yes, I have accepted this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "felling," to insert "or pruning." The noble Duke said: This is an Amendment which I think is necessary. For instance, any one can be prevented from felling a tree, but under the words of the Bill apparently it is not clear whether a person may be able to prune a tree or not. The point is that a tree might not be dangerous if it is pruned but dangerous if left unpruned. I think the insertion of "or pruning" would make it rather clearer. This Amendment has some connection with the next Amendment that I have on the Paper. As your Lordships know, it is a somewhat disputed case and very difficult sometimes to decide who is responsible for damage if anyone is injured or any injury is done by falling trees. The second Amendment is not necessarily consequential, but it makes the matter clearer, and I think it is more in keeping with the rest of the Bill. I may be wrong.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, after ("felling") insert ("or pruning").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

If the noble Duke will allow me, I will deal only with his first Amendment because the other one raises another point. The Office of Works do not, in any case, want to interfere with necessary operations such as the pruning of trees. Therefore, it really seems unnecessary to put words of this sort into the Bill.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Very likely it may be necessary for them to do so to preserve the amenities. You do not want in certain cases to have a branch falling clown and destroying the whole tree. Of course, I Jo not wish to press the Amendment if they do not want it, -but it is rather in the interest of their own powers that I move it.

LORD PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

We cannot accept it.

THE Dune OF BUCCLEUCH

Perhaps the noble Lord will it over between now and Report stage?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "trees," to insert "(otherwise than in the ordinary course of sylviculture and except trees which have become dangerous)." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is quite simple in character and, I think, is in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. I do not think there would be a wish, in the first place, not to cut down trees which are dangerous to the public. Also where there was a plantation which had to be thinned in the process of time, whether commercially, or for the good of the trees or eventually for the beauty of the landscape: I do not think there would be any wish to stop that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, after ("trees") insert ("(otherwise than in the ordinary course of sylviculture and except trees which have become dangerous)").—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

There is rather more in this Amendment than the noble Lord quite realises. The acceptance of it would make it almost impossible to exercise any control at all over the trees in the neighbourhood of a monument which it might be vital to protect. Obviously, in their own interests, the Commissioners would be reasonable as regards the conditions laid down. They would not oppose, of course, the removal of dangerous trees or the necessary thinning out of plantations. But they might find it necessary to re- strict the cutting down of trees for sale, an operation which would be in the ordinary course of sylviculture, and they would have to pay compensation. I think on the whole I cannot accept this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection 2, to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: This is looked upon as rather an important Amendment—to leave out the paragraph with regard to compensation—and you must take it in conjunction with my Amendment to the Second Schedule. I suggest to your Lordships that compensation is really of the essence of the Bill, and it should not be necessary to put it in. It should always be there. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will see his way to accept what I look upon as a very important matter of principle.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 14 to 16, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

This Amendment, as the noble Lord said himself, must be taken in conjunction with his Amendment to the Second Schedule. It would have the effect of giving an absolute right to all owners of property who considered that their property was injuriously affected by a scheme to have the matter, with the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid, decided by an official arbitrator under the Acquisition of Land Act of 1919. The proposal of the Office of Works is that the owners shall have this right only if the scheme says that they are allowed to have it, but if a scheme makes no provision for assessing compensation and any interested party objects, the scheme shall remain in force for two years unless confirmed by Parliament.

The noble Lord's proposition is really to alter the procedure. The reason for the form of the Office of Works proposal is that there might be cases where the injury to owners was so slight that no compensation was called for or where the Office of Works considered that there were no grounds on which a really bona fide claim to compensation could be made. The proposal of the Office of Works means that a two years limit is laid down solely in order to give time for a Bill to be prepared and passed through Private Bill procedure. It would obviously be applicable only where it was clear that there could be no continuing claim, or where the interference arising from the scheme was so slight as to be almost imperceptible, and it is precisely in such cases as that that no hardship would be imposed by a delay of two years. A reasonable attitude must, of course, be assumed on the part of the Commissioners, and in any case, by the application of Clause 2, subsection (3), of the Bill, and of the section in the 1913 Act, Parliament is enabled, in cases where it considers the Office of Works have acted unreasonably, to award costs against the Office of Works. There is a particular instance where that was actually done. For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am sorry the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment. The reasons he gave seem to me singularly inadequate. He said, in effect, that there would always be compensation except when the injury was so slight as to amount to scarcely anything. It that case it seems to me there can be no objection to leaving out the paragraph and also the other one, which merely means that compensation is inherent in the Bill, as I submit it is.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think this is a very important matter. It seems to me, if my noble friend's Amendment is not accepted, that the Office of Works will be also the judges of their own case and a person may have no redress if injured. That seems to me a very important matter. I do not think my noble friend's Amendment could in any way do any harm to the Bill; in fact, I think it is in keeping with the Bill.

LORD DANESEORT

Before the Question is put, might I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether the effect of the Bill as it stands on this particular clause is not to leave it to the Commissioners to say whether, in their discretion, there should be any compensation or not? The point of my noble friend who moved this Amendment is that a matter of this kind should not be left to the discretion of a body like the Commissioners. If damage is done, surely it is right that there should be compensation, and that it should not be left in any individual case to the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether the damage in their opinion is so trifling that there ought to be no provision for it. That seems to me a most extraordinary doctrine, and one which is contrary to our jurisprudence. When a man's property is interfered with by legislation, surely the recognised doctrine in this country is that he shall get compensation assessed in the proper way. But the Bill proposes to say: "Oh, the Commissioners do not think it is a case for compensation. They think it is a trifling matter." There is no appeal against that. I hope that this paragraph will be left out, and that it will be left to the other parts of the Bill to provide compensation in all cases where compensation is properly payable.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope your Lordships will support my noble friend in this Amendment. I admit I did not understand it for a few moments, but now I think I understand it. I am terribly shocked that such a provision should ever have been brought into any Bill. When my noble friend below me talks about this being a good Bill, I think he cannot have read this particular clause. What does it amount to? Certain people called Commissioners may, by Act of Parliament, take possession and the owner loses his property. Instead of giving that person compensation, as has always been done as far as I know in the history of this country, at any rate since the days of Robin Hood or persons of that description—instead of doing that, the buyer may if he likes, pay for what he has taken, and if he does not like he does not pay. It seems to me to be a most injurious provision. I hope my noble friend will go to a Division.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I think the noble Lords who have just spoken really misconceived what the clause involves. It is not left to the unfettered discretion of the Commissioners as to whether compensation shall be paid or not. In cases where they do not think that damage has been done sufficient to justify compensation being paid, they make their order, and then the matter, if there is protest and in- quiry, has to go forward. After a two years limit, a Bill is prepared, and has to be passed through Private Bill procedure. The Commissioners are absolutely restricted by that. Knowing that that procedure had to be gone through, they would not be likely to call it upon their heads by saying that no compensation was due where it was obviously due, and where any inquiry would prove it to be due. We must recognise, first of all, that the discretion of the Commissioners is not unfettered by any means, and one must attribute to the Commissioners the good sense to see that they would not act in an arbitrary way where there was any chance at all of compensation being due to the owner.

Viscount ULLSWATER

Who is going to start this Private Bill? Is it to be started by the person whose property has been taken, and who thinks he has not been properly compensated No person who knows anything at all about Parliamentary procedure is in the least likely to wish to start a Private Bill. The fees that have to be paid, and so forth, are really prohibitive. Is the Private Bill to be started by the Commissioners? If so, they probably would not start it, if it is against their own interests.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I apologise to the noble Viscount. I should not have said Private Bill. I should have said through Private Bill procedure.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

That is what I mean by a Private Bill—a Bill which is lodged in the month of December, with plans and all the rest of it, that goes before the Standing Orders Committee, goes through Second Reading in this House, is sent upstairs to a Committee and all the rest of it.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

It would be a Government Bill.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

Then the Government, if they knew the result of it was going to be that compensation would have to be paid, would probably not start it. They would not want to bring in a Bill in order to pay compensation. A man would have his compensation taken from him and all you would say to him is that the Government will, or may, bring in a Bill to compensate him. But they may not.

EARL PEEL

I do not quite understand the procedure which the noble Lord suggests. I do not in the least think that the Office of Works are going to be unreasonable, but apparently this man, as I undersand it, is to wait two years—is he not?—before he knows what is his position. He is left in suspense for two years, and at the end of that time somebody is to frame a Bill. I am not quite sure who is to do that.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

The Government.

EARL PEEL

The Government. If he makes any protest, then he has, as I understand, to appear before a Private Bill Committee and make out his case. Is not that rather an elaborate procedure and rather a lengthy procedure? He has to wait two years.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

The noble Earl, I think, would recognise the procedure, because it is the procedure that was in force when he was at the Office of Works.

EARL PEEL

This is in a fresh connection, is it not?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

It is only extending it to this particular subject that the Bill deals with. The Government are obliged to bring in a Bill as soon as possible. The two years is the outside limit. Your Lordships are aware that we are dealing really with a very exceptional case. We are attributing to the Commissioners a desire not to pay compensation to somebody who is entitled to it, and assuming that there would be a considerable delay before this man gets his rights. As a matter of fact I should think there would be very few cases of the Commissioners making the mistake of refusing compensation to somebody to whom it was clue. If, in a very exceptional case, they did do so, the Government would have to act and he would have almost immediate redress. He would insist on an inquiry, a Bill would have to be brought in at the earliest possible moment by the Government, and if his opposition was sufficient that Bill would be rejected in Parliament. I roust say that I think the owner of the particular site is amply safeguarded.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

There may be exceptional cases or only a few cases—I do not know, and I do not think anybody can tell, whether there will be many cases or only exceptional cases—but it is our duty to guard against these things and to see that they do not occur.

LORD DANESFORT

Is not the position this: if the Commissioners in their discretion think compensation should not be paid, then the only possible remedy which the aggrieved person has if he wants compensation is to appear before a Private Bill Committee at immense cost and to try and assert his rights? Surely it is much better that he should be able to assert his rights in all cases under the Bill by a comparatively cheap and reasonable procedure.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment proposed is to leave out paragraph (e). In order to preserve a later Amendment I suggest that I should put the Question that line 14 stand part of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16.—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then I put the Question that lines 15 and 16, the remainder of paragraph (e), stand part of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That means that paragraph (e) is taken out of the clause and therefore the next Amendment standing in the name of Lord Raglan falls.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection: (3) Where the felling or pruning of trees is prohibited or restricted under a preservation scheme, the person whose property they are shall be relieved of all responsibility in respect of them, and any liability incumbent on him as owner of the trees shall be transferred to the Commissioners. The noble Duke said: I move this Amendment because there is a certain risk that if trees are supposed to be dangerous and the owner knows the danger he will be held liable. If the Commissioners take the power of looking after trees out of his hands then I think they should be liable for compensation.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I would point out to the noble Duke that if an owner is prevented from cutting down trees in the ordinary case he would be obviously entitled to compensation.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

He would, yes, but he would not be relieved of having to pay compensation to the public.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I do not really see the necessity for the Amendment, and I would prefer not to put it in.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

It seems to me that an owner may incur very great liability. There may be a tree near a monument. If the public go to see the monument and the tree falls down and kills somebody or falls on a baby in a perambulator, the owner, unless this subsection is put in, would be liable. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. I do not see that it can do any harm to the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD DANESFORT

May I, on a point of order, ask the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, this question? How do we stand as regards paragraph (e)? We have cut out line 14, but I do not think we have agreed to cut out lines 15 and 16.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I have put that Question as consequential.

LORD DANESFORT

I am sorry.

LORD RAGLAN moved, at the end of subsection (5), to leave out "or continues." The noble Lord said: The effect of these words as they stand is that, if a person in a controlled area were by inadvertence to paint his back door the wrong colour, and if, as might easily happen, the matter were not brought to the notice of the Commissioners for six months, he would be liable to a fine of about £4,000. Such a fine would not be inflicted, but at the same time it seems to me that to make such a fine possible is to bring the law into ridicule.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 2, leave out ("or tinues").—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD FONSONBY OF SHLTBREDE

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. We have to take into account not only the poor man but the rich exploiter. The object of the Office of Works is to provide a deterrent penalty. This Amendment would make the position very obscure. I understand that the noble Lord's object is to provide that the penalty should be paid once for all, and should not be increased for each day during which the offence continues.

LORD RAGLAN

Unless something different is done on a subsequent day, or some further action taken.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

The offence might continue without something being done. It should be noted that the further remedy which the Office of Works possess against the contravention of schemes cannot apply to quarries. It would be manifestly impossible for the Office of Works to replace the damage done by a quarry contrary to the provisions of the scheme, and the owner of the quarry would, of course, proceed under subsection (5) and might gladly pay £20 or £100 to disregard the scheme.

LORD RAGLAN

Would not that be covered by the word "occurs"?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I do not think it would. The heaviness of the penalty is entirely within the discretion of the magistrates up to the maximum of £20 a day. The noble Lord's point that the offence would not continue without further action on the part of the owner would not, I think, stand examination. I think it might if, for instance, he purposely erected a very obnoxious building and left it there.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Provisions as to compensation and betterment.

2.—(1) The provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply with respect to the payment of compensation to persons whose property is injuriously affected by a preservation scheme which contains provisions for payment of compensation.

(2) Where a preservation scheme confirmed by the Commissioners contains no provision for payment of compensation to persons whose property is injuriously affected by the scheme, any person who alleges that his property is so affected may, within three months from the date of the order confirming the scheme, give notice in writing to the Commissioners that he objects to the scheme land, in that event, the scheme shall, if the objection is not withdrawn, cease to have effect upon the expiration of a period of two years from the said date unless it is confirmed by Parliament.

(3) For the purpose of the last foregoing subsection, subsections (4) and (5) of Section six of the principal Act shall apply with respect to Bills for confirming a preservation scheme as they apply with respect to Bills for confirming a Preservation Order, and where, by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, a scheme ceases to have effect, no further scheme shall be made in respect of the same monument until after the expiration of three years from the date on which the former scheme ceased to have effect.

(4) Where by the making of a preservation scheme, any property is increased in value, the Commissioners, if they make a claim for the purpose within three months from the date on which the scheme comes into force, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value the amount of that increase.

(5) Any dispute as to whether any property is injuriously affected or increased in value by a preservation scheme, or as to the amount and manner of payment (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which is to be paid as compensation under such a scheme or which the Commissioners are entitled to recover from a person whose property is increased in value, shall be determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am advised that Lord Cranworth's first Amendment to this clause, to leave out ("1"), is not necessary, as he has given Notice of Amendments to omit all the subsequent subsections. If these were omitted, I understand that the King's Printer will be quite within his rights in leaving out the figure ("1").

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "which contains provisions for payment of compensation." The noble Lord said: I think my Amendments that concern the first three subsections are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 3, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("which contains provisions for payment of compensation "). Page 3, lines 21 to 31, leave out subsection (2). Page 3, lines 32 to 41, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Cranworth.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I submit that the provisions of this subsection and the following subsection would be better placed in the Second Schedule. That is a matter for the noble Lord opposite to consider.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will see whether that would be a better place, if he will withdraw his Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RAGLAN moved, at the end of subsection (4), after "increase," to insert "provided that such person is in a position to take advantage of the increase." The noble Lord said: I regard this question of betterment with some suspicion. The position is that the Commissioners are empowered to say to a person: "We are going to make you a present, whether you want it or not, and you will then have to pay for it." That may not be so hard in the case of a person who is in a position to take advantage of the so-called present, but there are many people who inhabit or own a property which, owing to the fact that they hold it under a trust, deed of settlement, will or entail, are not able to sell the property, and therefore cannot derive any advantage, though they may nevertheless be called on by the Commissioners to pay a large sum of money for betterment. Whether I have the right words I am not sure, but I think some Amendment is certainly required here.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, after ("increase") insert ("provided that such person is in a position to take advantage of the increase.")—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am not certain that I see the noble Lord's intention in moving this Amendment. It would be a serious alteration, because it would affect not only this Bill but a far more important Town Planning Bill. If he is thinking of cases where the owner has land that is not ripe for development, but which will clearly be developed in time, perhaps because of the growth of the neighbouring town, and this has increased its value as potential building land, in such a case there would be no present increment.

LORD RAGLAN

Are there no cases in which, say, the Commissioners would make a new road, or remove cowsheds or something of the sort, from the neighbourhood of the house and then claim that there was betterment?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I cannot quite understand what this clause means—perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill can give us an explanation—but I think the noble Lord behind me has really touched a very important point. If a property is by some means or other increased in value, the Commissioners are entitled to come down on the owner for payment for the betterment of his property. He may not be in a position to pay this compensation, and I do not quite understand what steps the Commissioners would then take. I confess that I do not know what compensation they could claim but, supposing that they could claim compensation as suggested, I do not know haw they would be able to exact that compensation from someone who is not in a position to pay.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I quite admit that the noble Marquess has made a point that is somewhat obscure and difficult. I do not think it would be a question of paying betterment but of setting off betterment against compensation. That might occur from time to time. Betterment by itself is not easy to prove, and might be on some occasions difficult to assess, but I think the principle as embodied in this clause must be preserved.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I believe Lord Cranworth does not now propose to move his Amendment to leave out subsection (5).

LORD CRANWORTH

I understood the subsection was coming out now and that the noble Lord thought that if it came out now the matter could be dealt with in the Schedules.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I should prefer it to be the other way about, and that we should leave the subsection in now.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD DANESFORT

I should like to know a little more about the position of this clause. As this clause stands, there is in subsection (4) a provision for betterment. In other words, where property is increased in value the Commissioners may make a claim from the owner for the increase in value. That appears to me to be entirely wrong. Very difficult questions may arise as to betterment, and I do not think it is right to give the Commissioners power to say to an owner: "We have improved your property under the scheme and we therefore ask for compensation from you." It is true that the subsection has been passed without actual challenge, but it seems to me that subsection (4) ought to go out of the Bill altogether, and 1: shall preserve my right on Report to move the omission of that subsection, as introducing a very disputable and dangerous proposition.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am afraid that owing to my hardness of hearing I was not aware that the Government did not accept my Amendment. I should like to draw attention to the last sentence of the Amendment which I propose to insert in the Second Schedule:— Provided that such amount shall only be recoverable if and so soon as such property is sold at a price equal to or exceeding its increased value as aforesaid. I should be very sorry for that to go by default, because it seems to me inherently reasonable that if there is any betterment it should only be paid if and when that betterment is realised by the owner. It seems to be only common sense, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it. I was under the impression that it had been agreed to consider the question at a later date.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

As there seems to be some misunderstanding, might I suggest that we leave the clause out altogether now and bring up a new clause on Report?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am very reluctant to do that, but I am entirely in your Lordships' hands, and if that is what is decided I must accede to it. I think there is a principle in the clause which is worth preserving, and I am reluctant to drop the clause altogether, but if your Lordships vote against the clause I must submit.

On Question, Clause 2 omitted.

Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Amendment as to voluntary contributions.

6.—(1) The Commissioners shall have power under Section nine of the principal Act to receive voluntary contributions towards the cost of the maintenance and preservation of any ancient monument, and to enter into any agreement with the owner of any such monument or with any other person as to the maintenance and preservation of the monument and the cost thereof, notwithstanding that the Commissioners are not the owners or guardians of the monument.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or with any other person." The noble Viscount said: I am not quite clear about this clause. If your Lordships will look at it, it says:— The Commissioners shall have power. … to enter into any agreement with the owner of any such monument or with any other person as to the maintenance and preservation of the monument and the cost thereof. It seems to me that a tenant who is on bad terms with his landlord may during his tenancy enter into an agreement as to the upkeep of a monument, and the landlord may be saddled with the cost of something of which he does not approve. If the noble Lord can explain the clause in any other way, then I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 36, leave out ("or with any other person").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

The noble Viscount will see that this section is confined to monuments of which the Commissioners are the owners or guardians. The only object of this clause is to extend the power of the Commissioners under the section to monuments of which they are not the owners or guardians. For this purpose the clause merely repeats the words of the existing section, which include the words which Lord Bertie wishes to leave out. There are two good reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted. The first is that the owner of the monument may not be the person who is for the time being entitled to maintain and preserve the monument, or to allow the Commissioners to maintain and preserve it. The monument may, for instance, be let on a long lease, or it may be subject to a mortgage; and various other circumstances are possible in which some person other than the owner would be entitled to preserve and maintain the monument. The first reason, therefore, for the presence of these words is to allow the Commissioners to make an agreement with some person other than the owner in cases where that is necessary to make the agreement effective. I think your Lordships will appreciate the value of that.

The second reason is that cases may arise where the owner himself cannot afford to maintain the monument, but some one else (for example, a local archaeological society) is willing to provide the necessary funds. In such a case the Commissioners would wish to make the agreement with the person who was to provide the funds. But such an agreement would be quite worthless without the consent of the owner or other person entitled to maintain the monument; and such person would usually be a party to the agreement. If the noble Viscount fears that the clause may in some way prejudice the owner's rights, it should be observed that the clause only empowers the Commissioners to make an agreement. It does not empower the Commissioners to do anything in pursuance of the agreement. If, therefore, the Commissioners choose to make an agreement with some independent person without consulting the person who was really entitled to give them powers of maintenance or preservation, the agreement would be wholly ineffective. The agreement could only become effective with the consent of the person who was lawfully entitled to the control of the monument. I hope the noble Viscount, after this explanation, will not press his Amendment.

EARL PEEL

Is it quite clear that this agreement must be made with the consent of the owner?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Yes.

EARL PEEL

It does not say so in words, because it says "with any other person." Where does it say that the agreement must be with the owner?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

If the agreement is not made with the consent of the owner, it would be entirely ineffective.

VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME

Can an owner, under this subsection, be saddled with the cost which follows under an agreement made by his tenant? The tenant enters into an agreement with the Commissioners as to the cost of the upkeep. Can the landlord be saddled with the cost after the tenancy comes to an end?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I thought I had answered it in saying that, unless the owner has consented, no subordinate agreement with somebody who is leasing the property would he valid.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

It does not say that in the Bill. The words are "any agreement with the owner of any such monument or with any other person" as to its preservation. There is an arrangement which can be made with the owner "or with any other person." It does not say that the arrangement which is made with any other person is subject to the consent or otherwise of the owner.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I think that is certainly the intention. If the words are not explicit enough I will see to it.

EARL PEEL

Ought not the word to be "and," instead of "or"? If there is anybody else besides an owner with whom you have to enter into an agreement it is an additional alternative surely.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I will see that that is gone into and made explicit before the Report stage.

VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Amendments as to lists of ancient monuments.

(2) No person served with a notice under the last foregoing subsection shall, unless and until the monument to which the notice relates ceases to be included in any such list as aforesaid, execute or permit to be executed, except in a case of urgent necessity, any work for the purpose of demolishing, removing or repairing any part of the monument, or of making any alterations or additions thereto, until the expiration of three months after he has given to the Commissioners notice in writing of his intention to do so, and any person acting in contravention of the provisions of this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out "three months" and to insert "one month." The noble Viscount said: Under Section 14 of the principal Act, the penalty is one month. I see that in this Bill it is proposed to put the penalty at three months. What I propose is to bring this Bill into line with the Act of 1913, Section 14.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am advised that the three months is the term actually used in the Act of 1913, and it has been repeated here. I will, however, look into the matter.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

This Amendment is not moved.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Amendment as to regulations with respect to public access to monuments]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to insert the following new subsection:— (4) Any order made by the Minister of Health confirming any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.

The noble Duke said: I should like to apologise to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for being so late in putting down my Amendments. I have been away, and I was not aware the Bill was coming on this week. This Amendment seems to me to be necessary. A local authority is required under Section 13 of the Act of 1913 to make regulations relating to any monument of which it is the guardian. This Bill, by Clause 8, subsection (3), enacts that in future these regulations must be submitted to and confirmed by the Minister of Health, after consultation with the Commissioners. The Amendment goes a step further and provides that the order by the Minister confirming the regulations must be laid before Parliament. It is quite a common clause, and I think it is only a reasonable one. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. An Amendment which was down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is perhaps somewhat wider than mine, but I think mine will suit the purpose.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 4, at, end insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I quite appreciate the noble Duke's explanation of how his Amendments came to be put down on the Paper perhaps rather late. I began to be a little alarmed when the Paper swelled at such a very late stage, but I hope I shall be able to deal adequately with the suggestions he is putting forward. I think that by this Amendment he would really be burdening Parliament unduly with a great many regulations of the most trivial character, however necessary. There are some hundreds of these regulations issued by the Office of Works, such as "Keep off the grass," "Keep your dog on a lead," "Do not walk up that staircase," "That door is shut"; and to burden Parliament with all these regulations would, I think, be quite unnecessary.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Does the Amendment really burden Parliament very much? What would happen if this Amendment were carried and there were a hundred regulations about small matters? In the House of Commons, I do not think anybody would ever find them. In this House you would see them printed, but is that burdening Parliament? It may be that the regulations are bad and this Amendment would give an opportunity to some noble Lord to bring the question forward. This, again, really touches the question as to whether Ministers are to be the supreme authority in this country—whether a Minister may order this or that. I have always believed, being a person who is in favour of progress, that the proper people to decide these things are the members of the Houses of Parliament, not Ministers. I am strongly against any insidious attempt to leave out the functions of Parliament and to insert the functions of a Minister.

LORD DANESFORT

I hope this Amendment will be pressed. These regulations may very seriously affect the position of the owner and of other persons. See what the regulations are. The Commissioners may prescribe regulations under which the public shall have access to these ancient monuments. Then they make regulations for the preservation of the monuments and any property of the Commissioners, and for prohibiting certain things and charging fees. Then subsection (1) states that the regulations may be made "with respect to any monument which is under their control or management, notwithstanding that they are not the owners or guardians thereof." Some of these regulations may be of very great importance, both to the owner and to the public, and it is extremely important that they should not come automatically into operation. The noble Lord asks why Parliament should be burdened, and says that some of the regulations may be of very little importance. In that case Parliament will not trouble about them. But if they are of a serious character, affecting the rights of the owner or the public, surely it is right that Parliament should pronounce its opinion upon them before they become binding.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I would ask my noble friend not to press this matter to a Division. I am sure that all members of your Lordships' House are agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, in objecting to Ministers making regulations which should really be dealt with by Parliament, but the noble Lord opposite has told us that the great bulk of these regulations will deal with small matters which it would really he ridiculous to call upon Parliament in all its majesty to deal with. If the Amendment is pressed, all those small regulations would have to be brought before Parliament before they could be made valid.

LORD RAGLAN

I think this only affects monuments which have been actually handed over in some form, and therefore the rights of the owners are not interfered with, because they would already have parted with them to the Commissioners.

THE DUKE of BUCCLEUCH

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Export of ancient monuments.

10.—(1) The Commissioners may by order prohibit the exportation from Great Britain of any ancient monument or any part thereof, and it shall not be lawful to export a monument or any part thereof in contravention of such an order.

(2) Every such order shall come into force on the date of the making thereof and shall continue in force until revoked by a subsequent order.

(3) On making an order under this section, the Commissioners shall cause a copy thereof to be fixed on some conspicuous part of the monument and shall also cause a copy thereof to be served upon the owner and upon the occupier of the monument and upon every local authority within whose area any part of the monument is situate.

(4) An injunction to restrain the exportation of any monument or part of a monument in contravention of an order in force under this section may, on the application of any such local authority as aforesaid, be granted by the county court for the district in which any part of the monument is situate, but nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the right of any other person to take any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in respect of such a contravention.

LORD RAGLAN

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is moving to leave out the whole of Clause 10. I expect his Amendment will be agreed to and, therefore, I will not move my Amendment to leave out the first three subsections with the object of inserting a prohibition of export backed by a penalty.

LORD PONSONBY of SHULBBEDE

I am moving the omission of the clause, and I will say a word of explanation when the Amendment is reached.

LORD DANESFORT

I am much in the same position. I thought that Clause 10 was such a dangerous clause that I put on the Paper a series of Amendments which, if they had been accepted, would have improved the clause, though I do not think all the objections to it would have been removed. As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to leave out Clause 10 I shall strongly support him, if my support is of any value, to him, and shall not move the Amendments of which I have given Notice.

LORD CRANWORTH

I am also in the same position.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

And I suppose the noble Duke is in the same position?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Yes.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to leave out Clause 10. The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should give a word of explanation on the omission of this clause. The Amendments standing on the Paper in the names of various noble Lords would not, I think, have very much helped or improved the clause. It was admittedly from the outset a very difficult question as to how this could be enforced. But the Office of Works are still very apprehensive of the export of buildings of any interest from this country or their removal from the places where they were originally erected. It seems to me an unusual proceeding but, as I said on Second Reading, the wonders of engineering can do all sorts of things now and we must be prepared for this being possible. On a very close examination of the powers that the Office of Works have at present the First Commissioner of Works finds that he can intervene in order to prevent this taking place at a moment when the house is vacated and not inhabited. As no house can be very well demolished without first being vacated the First Commissioner of Works could step in and issue a Preservation Order and prevent it being exported. So the Office of Works consider that they have, as the law stands, sufficient power, if it is exercised, to prevent anything in the nature of the export of a building of interest.

LORD DANESFORT

Under what Act do they think they have that power to prevent export?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Under the 1913 Act.

LORD DANESFORT

Under what section?

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Under the Act of 1913 they are allowed to issue a Preservation Order in the case of a house being vacant and uninhabited. Although that power has existed for some time past they have not exercised it with the rapidity necessary—which, on some occasions, must be a matter of a few days—being in doubt as to whether they had the power. They now find on examination that they have this power, so that the actual export or removal of buildings of historic interest can he prevented. With regard to detaching parts of a building—fireplaces, panelling, or anything of that sort—that is an extremely difficult thing to regulate, and I doubt very much whether it would be possible to regulate anything so far-reaching as that in an Act of Parliament. Therefore, satisfied as they are with the powers that they have, they feel it is unnecessary that this clause should be inserted in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 10.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I was very much interested in what the noble Lord said. As I understand it, the Office of Works have only power to stop an owner exporting a house when it becomes empty. If your Lordships will turn to subsection (1) of Clause 10 you will see that it shall not be lawful to export a monument or any part thereof…. The part, whether a mantelpiece or anything of that kind, might be in an inhabited house. I take it that in those circumstances the Office of Works would have no power except what is contained in this clause. If this clause is not inserted then no power will be given to the Office of Works to stop the export of a ceiling or anything of that kind. Am I correct in that supposition?

LORD RAGLAN

It seems to me that if an owner of an ancient monument wishes to export it all he has to do is to live on the ground floor while the upper storeys are being removed.

LORD NOEL-BUXTON

I should like to know whether my noble friend can give the House some assurance that the policy he suggests will be carried out. There have been conspicuous cases in recent times. For instance, I recollect that a house in Suffolk was partly demolished quite lately in order to go to the United States. But public interest was aroused and the owner was induced in the end to rebuild that part of the house—it was an old timbered house—which had been taken down. Public opinion came into action just in time. Are there not many cases where it might be that the Office of Works would have no knowledge, until it was too late, that such a case was occurring? And would not Parliament be more discreet in providing that the ground was covered by embodying this principle in the Bill.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I quite understand that there have been cases where this has been done. Until recently the Office of Works have been very uncertain with regard to their powers, but they are quite clear now, on a full examination and after getting legal advice, that they have this power. All that arises now is whether they have sufficient machinery to be made aware of the intention on the part of an owner to do this. I admit that my noble friend has found a point that may be of some difficulty. The Office of Works have the assistance up and down the country of all archaeological societies, who are constantly watching these things and are in close contact and constant correspondence with the Department. Now that public attention has been called to these matters, if any owner had the intention of parting with a really valuable historical house I think that the Office of Works would certainly hear of it in time to put in a Preservation Order.

EARL PEEL

As the noble Lord says, there are these archaeological societies who have their own inspectors and are able to keep the Office of Works pretty well informed certainly as regards important and well known objects. But I should have thought there was some risk in the case of interesting but less well known buildings of that danger arising; though I agree that in the case of well known buildings there is probably not much danger. The noble Lord will appreciate the fact, of course, that this does require rapidity of action in many cases on the part of a Government Department and except, of course, in the case of the Office of Works, we do not always associate rapidity of action with Government Departments.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I ask the noble Lord, who has not quite met my point, whether there is any possibility of part of a house being saved? It may be that there is only one thing in the house that is interesting and that it can be exported without any difficulty.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am afraid that is so. The difficulty of being able to keep control over all features of interest and all houses in the country, considering what an abundance of beautiful and valuable material we have got, is, I am afraid, beyond the power of the Office of Works. I agree with what the noble Earl said, that the larger houses are perfectly safe, but I think he will also admit that recently there has been an enormous increase in archaeological interest in every county, and I think there is great vigilance up and down the country to see that nothing of importance is destroyed.

On Question, Amendment to leave out Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Power of Commissioners to enter upon lands.

11.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Commissioners, and any person specially authorised in writing by them in that behalf, may for the purposes of investigation enter upon any land which the Commissioners have reason to believe contains an ancient monument, and may make excavations in the land for the purposes of examination:

Provided that— (a) no person shall, under the powers conferred by this section, enter any dwelling-house or any park, garden, pleasure ground or land otherwise used for the amenity or convenience of a dwelling-house except with the consent of the occupier; and

(2) If any person wilfully obstructs or hinders the Commissioners or any person duly authorised by them in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (1), after "investigation," to insert "at all reasonable times after giving due notice in writing of his intention and on production of his authority if so required." The noble Viscount said: I see my noble friend Lord Cranworth has an Amendment to the same effect as mine, and, as I like his wording better, I shall not move mine.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

May I say I am quite prepared to accept the principle of these Amendments. If the noble Lords would withdraw their Amendments, I will introduce one at a later stage on the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth's Amendment, but with the last few words of the noble Viscount's Amendment put in, which I think are quite reasonable—"on production of his authority if so required." I will move later a combination of the two Amendments, if the noble Lords will withdraw theirs at the present time.

LORD GRANWORTH

That is quite acceptable to me, if the noble Lord saves the seven days, because posts are bad in some parts of the country.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Yes.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert, "doing as little damage as may be in the execution of the powers hereby granted and making compensation for any damage which may be done in the execution of such powers, any dispute as to the amount of such compensation being determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is plain upon its face. I am aware that the majority of people who come down would be most admirable and considerate people. I am always rather suspicious of these people, and I think it is only fair that some precaution should be taken that they should not do any damage, and that if they do any damage compensation should be afforded. I should have thought that the noble Lord would have found no difficulty in accepting that.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I ask whether the Government have any intention of using the unemployed to dig about all over the country and so provide work for them on the chance of finding an ancient monument?

EARL PEEL

They are not skilled enough.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, which really is almost in the nature of an aspersion on the inspectors, as if they were going to go about destroying monuments which are entrusted to their care. No excavation of any sort or kind can take place without the consent of the owner, and the inspectors are not going to damage the monument in any way.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

It may be inadvertently done, and there would be no compensation.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Oh, yes.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Under what provision?

LORD CRANWORTH

I am really not what I might call extremely suspicious of these people. I know that the vast majority will be, as the noble Lord says, extremely careful. But there will be a minority. Still, I do not propose to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had given Notice to move an Amendment in subsection (1) after "provided with," to insert the following now paragraph:— (a) The Commissioners shall give to the owner and occupier of the land reasonable notice of the day and hour when the examination is to be made. The noble Lord said: I think this point is already covered by the Amendment which the noble Lord opposite is going to bring forward, and I do not move.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), after the first "dwelling-house," to insert "or any other building." The noble Viscount said: In proviso (a) no person shall, under the powers conferred by this section, enter any dwelling-house or any park, garden, pleasure ground or land. Anybody can therefore enter upon a dairy or any outhouse or a garage, and I propose to put in words "or any other building.' I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 10, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("or any other building").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment in this form. The noble Viscount's words would include a ruin or barn, both of which can be scheduled, whereas a dwelling-house cannot be scheduled. The object of the clause is to enable scheduled monuments to be inspected, or investigations to be made as to whether a monument should be scheduled or not. If the noble Viscount will allow me, I will see on Report stage that the word "building" is inserted before "park" in line 11.

VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME

That seems on the face of it to meet my point, but I should like to see on Report what the noble Lord produces.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after the second "dwelling-house," to insert "or any woods or plantations." The noble Lord said: This is merely an extension of the words of the paragraph. I think probably the noble Lord would agree that you do not want anyone walking and poking about through woods without the leave of the owner, which, of course, would not be unreasonably withheld. I hope he will allow the addition of these words.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 13, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("or any woods or plantations").—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I should prefer not to put this in, because a wood or plantation might well contain an ancient monument or earthwork or something of that kind. I think noble Lords have been unduly suspicious about these inspectors. If they are going to go about damaging woods and walls and monuments, they would be dismissed at a very early moment.

LORD CRANWORTH

It is not asking them to do very much—to obtain the leave of the owner. It seems to me to be a matter of courtesy. Seeing that they are such excellent fellows, they will be only too pleased to do it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), after "them," to insert "who has produced his authority in writing to him." The noble Viscount said: This is more or less a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 21, at end insert ("who has produced his authority in writing to him").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Service of documents.

12.—(1) Every document, required or authorised to be served under Section six of the principal Act, or under this Act, upon the owner or occupier of an ancient monument, may be served either by delivering it or leaving it at the usual or last-known place of abode of the person on whom it is to be served, or by sending it by post as a registered letter addressed to him at his last-known place of abode or, if that cannot be found, by fixing it on some conspicuous part of the monument.

THE DUKE of BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1), after "found," to insert "addressed to his known agent, or if no agent be known." The noble Duke said: This is not an Amendment of great importance, but it has been suggested to me that it would be a considerable convenience if it was put in. The words proposed are not very common in English Bills, but they are very common in Scottish Bills. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 33, after ("found") insert ("addressed to his known agent, or if no agent be known").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am afraid I could not accept this. I think the noble Duke will see it is rather an unnecessary Amendment. It would be impossible for the Department to find out in many cases whether the owner's agent had authority himself to open letters on behalf of the owner. It would complicate matters.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I do not want to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:—

Exemption from, Death Duties.

".—(1) Where there passes on the death of a person dying after the commencement of this Act any ancient monument which is the subject of a preservation order under the principal Act or an order prohibiting its export under this Act the value of such ancient monument shall not be taken into account for the purpose of estimating the principal value of the estate passing on the death or the rate at which estate duty is chargeable thereon and such ancient monument shall while enjoyed in kind be exempt from death duties.

(2) In the event of the sale of any such ancient monument to which this section applies death duties shall subject as hereinafter provided become Chargeable on the proceeds of sale in respect of the last death on which such ancient monument passed and as respects estate duty at the rate appropriate to the principal value of the estate passing on that death upon which estate duty is leviable and with which such ancient monument would have been aggregated if it had not been an ancient monument to which this section applies, and the person by whom or for whose benefit such ancient monument was sold shall be accountable for the duties and shall deliver an account for the purposes thereof within one month after sale:

Provided that death duties shall not become chargeable as aforesaid if the sale is to the National Trust or any other similar national institution, any university, county council or municipal corporation in Great Britain.

(3) Where there passes on the death of a person dying as aforesaid any land which is the subject of a preservation scheme under this Act the fact that such land is subject to the restrictions and limitations of user thereby imposed shall for the purpose of estimating the principal value of the estate passing on the death or the rate at which estate duty is chargeable thereon be taken into account."

The noble Lord said: I look upon this Amendment as rather an important one, but I feel certain that it will have the sympathy of the Government because it is based on Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1930, which exempts from Death Duties pictures and objects of historical and artistic merit. Seeing that the Government look upon those as being exempt from Death Duties, I cannot but think that in the case of an ancient monument, in which the public will share to a far greater extent than in the case of a picture, while the owner will share to a far less extent, the case for exemption from Death Duties is really far greater. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will find no difficulty in accepting this Amendment. Your Lordships will note that the first two paragraphs of my Amendment refer to the monument itself, and the third refers to the land on which it stands.

Amendment moved— Page 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

On a point of order, I should like to point out that I have an Amendment to this proposed new clause. Ought I move it now or later?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think the regular procedure would be to move it now. The position is that we have an Amendment proposed, after Clause 14, to insert the new clause as printed on the Paper, to which the noble Duke moves an Amendment to insert certain words in line 5 of the proposed Amendment. The Question before the Committee is that those words be there inserted, and then we shall come back to the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I do not know whether my noble friend has looked at the words which I propose to insert. It occurred to me that if, after "principal Act," the words "or of which the Commissioners or any local authority are guardians" were inserted, it would make his clause more complete.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— After ("Act") in line 5 insert ("or of which the Commissioners or any local authority are guardians").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD CRANWORTH

I gladly accept those words.

On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Now the question before the House is whether the proposed Amendment, as amended, be inserted in the Bill.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

The noble Lord has brought forward his Amendment in a very convincing and moderate way, but however much one may sympathise with the object of the Amendment—and I think, if I may say so, there would be general sympathy for it—it is quite obviously not a subject which can be introduced into this Bill. We cannot alter the Finance Act by a clause in an Ancient Monuments Bill. I do not want to argue the merits of the case, but I would refer the noble Lord to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in June last year when his attention was drawn to this question by two members of the House of Commons. He was impressed by their argument and said that he would certainly give it the fullest consideration before introducing his next Budget. I think for this House to embark on a financial operation at all is perhaps a doubtful procedure, but to do it in an Ancient Monuments Bill is certainly not at all to be commended. Therefore, apart from the merits of the proposal which the noble Lord has made, I would ask him not to press it, because the Government could certainly not insert such a provision in this Bill at this stage. It would certainly be rejected in another place.

EARL PEEL

There is, of course, difficulty in putting a clause of this kind into this Bill, but I would ask the noble Lord if he would undertake to bring the matter to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because unfortunately we are rather near a Budget. I think it would be useful if he would do that, because, if we are to strike, now is the time to strike.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I am so subordinate an official that I am afraid I should have no influence, but my right hon. friend, the First Commissioner of Works, who is constantly seeing his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will, I am sure, impress him with the importance of this point.

EARL PEEL

I think it would be advantageous if we could have the personal assistance of the noble Lord opposite and perhaps his undertaking that it would be done.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I cannot believe that the noble Lord has no influence, but I quite agree that to insert this Amendment is quite impossible at the present moment. It alters the Finance Act to begin with, and it deals with money matters with which we have no power to deal. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment, much as I should like to see the whole of the Death Duties abolished.

LORD DANESFORT

Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will give the undertaking suggested and bring the matter before the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will adopt the suggestion or not is another thing, but if he will bring it before the Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall know that it will not escape the Chancellor's notice when he is framing his Budget.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I think I must be strictly correct. The approach must come through the First Commissioner of Works.

LORD CRANWORTH

I think I may understand that the noble Lord will, by some method or other, bring the matter to the notice of the Government. I am bound to say that when I brought forward the Amendment I had some faint suspicion that I might be told that this subject could not be dealt with here. However, I hope—and I think I may take it that I have the noble Lord's assurance—that he will in some form or other bring the matter to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Interpretation.

16.—(1) The definitions contained in Section twenty-two of the principal Act of the expressions "monument" and "ancient monument" shall cease to have effect, and for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act— (a) the expression "monument" shall include any building, structure, or other work, whether above or below the surface of the land, other than an ecclesiastical building for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes, and any cave or excavation;

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "or other work" and insert "or erection." The noble Viscount said: In Clause 22 of the principal Act the expression used is "or erection." In the present Bill the words are "or other work." I have put down this Amendment in order to try to elicit from the noble Lord why the change was made.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 10, leave out ("or other work") and insert ("or erection").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I prefer the words as they stand. The word "erection" might not include an earthwork, and I am quite sure that the words "or other work" are better.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The noble Lord having satisfactorily explained the expression, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "other than an ecclesiastical building for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes." The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to enable cathedrals and churches to be scheduled as ancient monuments. It is not very easy to understand why these buildings, which are held by the ecclesiastical authorities in trust for the nation, should not be under the same control as buildings in private hands. There is no doubt that nowadays things are much better than they were a hundred years or fifty years ago. Then, the hand of the restorer was very heavy, and many churches and cathedrals were irretrievably spoiled. Things are better now, but there is still a good deal of vandalism and neglect. It seems to me that the ecclesiastical authorities—I think the majority of them—who look after their buildings properly will have no cause to fear, while those who do not look after them properly are in need of the Commissioners' attention. I saw a moment or two ago two right rev. Prelates in the House and I had hoped for an expression of opinion from them; but I see they have gone away. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 11, leave out from ("other") to ("purposes") in line 13.—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

I must confess that I am in very great personal sympathy with the argument put forward by the noble Lord. I should very much like to see cathedrals come under the Office of Works and the State. The Dean of one of the cathedrals once admitted to me that he thought the power of the Dean and Chapter over the structure of the cathedral was excessive, that the responsibility was too great, that they could do anything and that nobody could protest. But I must say that I think we must admit that the Deans and Chapters of our various cathedrals have discharged their trusts extraordinarily well except during the nineteenth century, when there were such things as the work done at the west end of St. Alban's Abbey and the introduction of a certain number of monstrosities in some cathedrals. But, on the whole, I think they have done their best to preserve them as great national monuments. In any case, it would be impossible to introduce so drastic a change by the alteration of words in this Bill. I do not think the Church is willing to accept any control at the present time. I regret, like the noble Lord, that there is no right rev. Prelate on the Benches here to speak for them, but I do not think we must take advantage of their absence to deprive them of their cathedrals.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:— ( ) In this Act the expression 'injuriously affected' includes any restriction imposed by any provision of a preservation scheme upon the use of any property affected by the scheme. The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to which I attach some importance. If there is not a clear definition of the words "injuriously affected," unless a person can prove that actual damage has been done, such as demolition, he will get no compensation. I want your Lordships to say that, if he is restricted in the use of his property, he should get compensation under the Act of 1919. I would remind your Lordships that a person might not even be the owner of the ancient monument and yet might be precluded, without compensation, from developing his land, which may be his sole means of support and of paying taxation.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

The noble Viscount will notice that, since we have omitted Clause 2, this is inappropriate.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will look into it between now and Report. I am quite sure that what he says is right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

First Schedule: