HL Deb 13 July 1931 vol 81 cc770-7

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, I beg to move that the London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central Railway Companies (Works) Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD DICKINSON

My Lords, as I am rather new to the procedure of your Lordships' House I am not at all sure whether I am in order in asking the attention of your Lordships to the peculiar position in which this private Bill, which has been promoted by the London Electric, District and Central London Railway Companies, stands at the present moment. I understand that it has passed through all its stages in this House excepting the Third Reading as an unopposed Bill, and so far as anybody was aware up to this moment there seems to have been no reason for anybody to oppose it.

The promoters propose to run an underground railway under one of the most beautiful squares in South London, which is called Camberwell Green. The limits of deviation extend under the square and also across the road and under various houses on the other side of the road. The original proposal, as I understand it, was that the railway company should make a station. For the purposes of that station they have obtained, or are wishing to obtain, powers to take houses on the other side of the road. They have made no proposal to erect a station on Camberwell Green. Without anybody knowing up to the present moment that there was any suggestion that this station should be erected on an important square in London, this Bill has gone through all its stages up to the present. This particular square is protected already by Act of Parliament passed in 1906, I think, and it is one of the squares in a Bill for the protection of the garden squares in London that has passed your Lordships' House as well as another place. Therefore, without statutory enactment no one, not even the Camberwell Borough Council, can build on that square.

Now we hear—and we know as a matter of fact, because it has been published in the proceedings of the Camberwell Borough Council and has appeared in the public Press—that an arrangement has been come to between the promoters of this Bill and the Camberwell Borough Council whereby the station will not be placed on the other side of the road, but will be brought on the side of the road where Camberwell Green lies and will be erected to a height of one storey on the green. I have a plan in my hand. Not only will it be a station of considerable size, but there will also be erected lavatories and public conveniences, etc., all placed, as we understand, on this square. No one has had notice of this proposal. The Bill has passed through its stages in your Lordships' House without containing any such proposal, and now it is to go from us to another place without any reference in this Bill to this particular agreement between the Borough Council and the company. When it gets to the other place that other place will find itself met with an agreement between the company and the Borough Council for building on this square, to which great objection will no doubt be taken by many persons but to which no objection will be taken by the public authority, as we understand, on behalf of the people of Camberwell.

I do not quite know what action I can take at the present moment. I am glad to see the Lord Chairman here. No doubt he will assist me, as he always assists us, in difficult situations. But I submit to your Lordships that we should have some opportunity of bringing before the Committee of your Lordships' House this proposal which is a proposal of very considerable importance I can assure you, and one which ought not to be carried out in connection with a Bill which will have passed your Lordships' House without hearing any opposition to it and without even this particular proposal being contained in the Bill. I do not know that I can say anything more. I must leave it in the position in which it is. My noble friend Lord Crawford will, I am glad to say, give the weight of his support to my objection, and I hope he may find some way of enabling your Lordships to consider the merits of this particular proposal before it goes any further through Parliament.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, I am very glad this has been pointed out. I knew nothing about it at all until a day or two ago when, thanks to the good offices of the noble Lord opposite and some of his friends, I heard about this proposal. The Bill which is now before your Lordships' House and which has passed through Committee proposes to take possession of certain shops on Camberwell Green which will be demolished, and upon the site of which the new station and appurtenances thereof will be built. The Bill was unopposed. No friend of the open spaces movement in London knew of any alternative scheme, and so far as I am aware the County Council were not notified of any proposed change in procedure. The Bill, accordingly, went to an unopposed Committee here. Then, how or when or where I know not, the original scheme of the Bill to which your Lordships had given a Second Reading was abandoned and now the southern end of Camberwell Green, a charming little open space in South London, is to be taken and the station is to be built upon it. Here is the Bill. There is nothing whatever about it in the Bill. It was not discussed in the Committee and it would not have been known to your Lordships except through the private information we were fortunate enough to obtain of this outrage, which is to be committed behind the backs and without the knowledge of Parliament.

I dare say many of your Lordships do not know Camberwell Green. It is a delightful little open space in South London at a great crossing of thoroughfares passed, not by hundreds of thousands, but by millions of people every week. It does not belong to Camberwell, it belongs to the whole of South London, a delightful little square; obviously from the nature of the trees one that has been looked after with very great care for many years past. It is a small area of five acres only but with real character. Now we learn by chance that half an acre of the southern end of it—that is where the main entrance to the grounds exists—is to be cut off. It is a very serious thing, especially in this House, which has always taken particular interest in the open spaces of London and has the tradition of ensuring that where an open space is impaired an equivalent open space shall be found in compensation, that without our knowledge and without anything about it being in the Bill so drastic a change should be made during the process of unopposed treatment by a Committee.

It is suggested, with what authority I do not know—again this is not in the Bill—that the railway company, which of course is absolved from buying these houses on Camberwell Green, shall in compensation spend a considerable sum of money in beautifying a churchyard in that neighbourhood. The Church of St. Giles in Camberwell 200 yards perhaps beyond the green, has at the back of it a churchyard, the most leafy and the most shady bit of woodland in the whole of South London I should imagine, and an enormous sum—£6,000 is mentioned—is to be spent upon beautifying that place. All I can say is that if they spend £6,000 upon that remote little churchyard they will ruin it. For that amount of money the whole thing, I suppose, will be covered with concrete and made quite uninteresting compared with its existing charm. But the point is this. The care of that churchyard ought to be in the hands of somebody else than the metropolitan railway companies and the borough council. Moreover, whatever they spend on that churchyard, it does not confer on the public an amount of land equivalent to that which is taken away from them on Camberwell Green.

I see the Lord Chairman is in his place. I hope he will give us his counsel on this matter, to which I attach the greatest importance. There is ample precedent, and in a Metropolitan Bill, for recommitting a Bill when it reaches the Third Reading stage in this House, and it seems to me that the least we can do is to give the Committee of this House the power to examine this question, which is entirely new to it. If we cannot do that, it is obviously our duty to do our utmost to get the Bill properly considered in another place. Fortunately, the Bill originated in this House, so that there is another opportunity for Parliament. Meanwhile, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees if he would recommend your Lordships to recommit it in order that the measure may have at least some consideration by the Committee.

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, admit I knew nothing about this Bill when I entered the House this afternoon, but what I have heard in the course of this debate is something that is both novel and alarming. It appears that part of a public space in a very crowded district of London—a place singularly lacking in the public spaces which other places are more fortunate to possess—is going to be taken by means of a device, which it is not too much to characterise as not decent, to be introduced into a Bill at this stage without any Committee of this House having had an opportunity of considering whether it should be done. If that be the true position it is something to which I humbly suggest to your Lordships it is impossible for this House to consent without loss of its self respect. To have a matter of this kind put upon us in this way is something which no self-respecting assembly could possibly accept. There are, I think, one or two methods of dealing with the matter and the method proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is probably the least drastic. It is that the Bill be re-committed and the facts for the first time brought before a Committee of this House. That is one thing. Of course there is another thing. We could reject the Bill on Third Reading, or I imagine we could postpone the debate on Third Reading to enable the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, who called attention to the matter, to put down an Amendment. Either of these courses is open to us, and I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that one of those courses ought to be taken. After all the struggle we have had in Parliament and elsewhere to secure open spaces for London, to have them filched from us under our noses is something to which I say we ought not to assent.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I am sure there is no difference of opinion on the underlying principles involved in the discussion raised by Lord Dickinson, and in all parts of the House there will be gratitude to him for raising the matter which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has said, cannot be allowed to pass per incuriam, without any one knowing anything about it. There are three methods I would suggest by which we can deal with this question. I should not myself suggest following the most drastic method—that is rejection on Third Reading—because the matter can be put right without so drastic a measure as that. There are two ways in which it could be put right—either to move to re-commit the Bill (which was done on a previous occasion I believe by the then Leader of the House, Lord Crewe, a man of great authority on matters of this kind), or as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has suggested, it would be possible to move on Third Reading the insertion of a clause which would give the required protection. Perhaps the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees would tell us which of these two forms of procedure would be most convenient, but that we must adopt one or other I have no doubt whatever.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, the procedure which has been adopted with regard to this Bill has been described by noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships, and the three courses open to your Lordships have been stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. One is the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. I think your Lordships will agree that that is perhaps too drastic a step to meet the case raised by the noble Lord behind me. The second method is that of re-commitment, and the third that of moving an Amendment after full discussion of the matter on Third Reading. The question has been raised as to whether it is possible to re-commit a Bill on Third Reading. I have been into the precedents and I am assured that it is possible and has been done. Therefore, if your Lordships will agree to that, I would move a Motion that has been prepared for me by the learned officers of the House-that is to leave out the words "now read a third time" and insert "re-committed." That would mean that the Bill would go back to Committee and that it would be possible to discuss all its aspects in a Committee of the House. It would be reported upon and dealt with in the usual manner and we should have an opportunity of considering the question. If that would meet the views of noble Lords I would move that.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are greatly obliged to the noble Earl, but of course this is a very controversial thing, and it is necessary to be certain that the Committee to which this Bill is referred shall be able to hear persons who oppose it. Of course no notices have been given because this is entirely new. In other words, the Committee to which the Bill is committed should have power to receive after due notice being given objections which may legitimately be raised from any source.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, may I make a suggestion? So far as I am concerned I knew nothing of this matter until it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, and one cannot wonder that my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster should express surprise that it should be possible to do the things which appear to have been done in the case of this Bill. I think that the suggestion which the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has made is probably the wisest, but as most of us are acting on very short notice—I do not think any of us have had much time to look into it—would it not be better to adjourn the debate for a week? We could then satisfy ourselves as to the best course to take. I am not saying that the proposal that has been made is not the best one, but in order that we should not be put into a false position I think it would be wise for the House to insist on adequate time to consider what ought to be done. I will therefore move that the debate be adjourned for a week.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned for a week. —(Viscount Hailsham.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I would agree with that if it suits the convenience of your Lordships and meets the views of the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson and the noble Earl, Lord Crawford. Of course Amendments could be put down on the occasion of the adjourned debate if noble Lords wish to do so.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.