PART I. (Hansard, 5 July 1932)

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, the Government must at last make a stand against the drafting zeal of the noble Viscount. The words "park or garden" are wide enough to cover all likely cases. The objection to including these words is that the Bill as drafted follows a 580 well recognised code. The same provision is in the Housing Act, 1930, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1931, and the effect of inserting "pleasure ground" may be to limit the meaning of "park or garden" in the other Acts.

§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLE
My Lords, I am not quite satisfied with the answer of my noble friend. In the first place, although, like my noble friend Lord Bertie, I cannot call to mind a specific case in which the words "pleasure ground" appear, I have a recollection that in Mr. Lloyd George's Land Tax proposal those words played a very prominent part indeed on the question as to whether or not they should be exempted. In any case, surely, there are parcels of land which appertain to a mansion in the country other than a park or a garden. A garden may be a kitchen garden or a flower garden, while it is obvious what a park is. There are, however, many places of quite considerable area which are certainly not parks because they are enclosed in a comparatively small compass. They have no flowers or fruit and they are what I call shrubberies. I do think that if you are going to try to keep for the owner, and not oblige him to sell compulsorily, the land round his house it would be a good thing to put in "pleasure ground." I can see no objection to doing so. It seems to me that if the Government really want to make the wording water-tight they ought to agree to my noble friend's Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
My Lords, the Amendment I now move is a drafting Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT ULLSWATER
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has referred to the fact that in another Amendment of a similar character to this I took objection to his emendation of the grammar. I have been scratching my head about it and looking at it again, and I still think that I am right. Just let me read part of the sentence. It says: but the Minister, before giving his decision … shall, where any Government De- 581 partment other than the Ministry of Health is concerned. … That is perfectly intelligible. Where any Government Department other than a particular one is concerned the Minister has to consult. That is quite clear. But the noble Viscount proposes to make it read thus: but the Minister, before giving his decision …shall, where any Government Department other than the Ministry of Health are concerned. … Surely if he says are, "Government Department" is wrong. "Department" ought to be "departments."

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, I think the attitude of the Government is expressed by the phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? We have accepted a good many grammatical Amendments of the noble Viscount, and if they prove to be wrong I do not know where we stand. Actually my instructions are to accept the Amendment. But the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, have great force. The only trouble is that we have accepted similar Amendments in previous cases. I suggest that we should accept this Amendment and leave it to the Government draftsman to consider the whole matter.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD
Might we have the opinion of the Lord Chairman of Committees?

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
I suggest that it be referred to the member for Oxford University, and then we could decide what to do on Third Reading.

§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE
My Lords, I cannot help thinking that Lord Ullswater is right, but it is a terrible blow to think that the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is capable of making such an error, because I take it for granted he is right every time he has an Amendment, and I agree that we ought now to start the proceedings again and go through all his Amendments.

§ THE MARQUESS OF READING
Are we in this and future Acts of Parliament to treat a Government department as a plural? If not, why should we here?

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
My Lords, I am simply following out what the Government have put in this Bill and other Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, must not think I am always right; 582 very likely I am often wrong because I try to follow the Government. But I cannot understand why, if the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, disagrees with this Amendment, he does not, on page 42 and page 81, put "Government department" with a singular verb, because in this very Bill the Government draftsman has treated it as a plural.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
My Lords, may I suggest that we follow the advice of Lord Gage and leave it to the draftsman and the grammatical authorities to put their heads together and see that this is put right? I think we have accepted Lord Bertie's Amendments before, and if we follow the other course now we may get into difficulties. On Third Reading, with the advice of all the eminent authorities, we might get it straight.

§ VISCOUNT ULLSWATER
My Lords, I think we might console ourselves with this thought. This matter will come before the Courts. It will then go to the Court of Appeal, and, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, it will come before your Lordships' House, and your Lordships in your judicial capacity will give your final decision.

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting or consequential.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment here.

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME
My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, the four next Amendments are consequential or drafting.