COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 31 July 1957)

THE EARL OF DROGHEDA
My Lords, all the Amendments to this Bill really hang together, and perhaps you will allow me, in moving that we agree with the Commons in their first Amendment, to speak on all of them. The House may remember, in connection with this Bill, that by an Act passed in 1627 certain lands and houses in Sussex and in and about the Strand in London were entailed and made inalienable so that the entail could not be broken except by a subsequent Act of Parliament. The Arundel Estate Bill, as it was first introduced, had two objects: the breaking of the statutory entail, to which I have referred, and the preservation of Arundel Castle as a building of national, historic and architectural interest and as a residence for the Earl Marshal of England for the time being. The Bill would have charged the Strand estate with the establishment of two funds—one for the upkeep of Arundel Castle and the other for the provision of compensation for those persons whose potential interests would be affected by the removal of the restraints under the Act of 1627.
396 The Bill, in its present amended form, omits all the provisions regarding the preservation of Arundel Castle and all reference to the Earl Marshal, and it also omits all the provisions relating to the formation and application of a compensation fund. It now does nothing more than remove the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1627, and the effect is simply to put the Duke of Norfolk. in dealing with this parliamentary estate, in the same position as any ordinary tenant in tail.
I ought also to say a word about the result of the omission from the Bill of the provisions respecting compensation. The Standing Orders of this House relating to Private Bills say that the consent of all parties concerned in the consequences of a Personal Bill shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Committee on the Bill, and, more particularly, that infants so interested shall be represented by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor for that purpose. In the present case, the consent of all parties concerned was duly proved before the Committee, the consent of the infants being expressed on their behalf by the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee.
This is not, of course, the Committee stage of the Bill, and it may be that, under the strict letter of our Standing Orders, we are not concerned to see that, in the altered circumstances, the consents have been given. But I think that under the spirit of our Orders we ought to do so, and I must explain to your Lordships what has happened in this respect. The Duke has signed an undertaking that, if all the necessary consents are given and the Arundel Estate Bill is passed by Parliament this Session in the form in which it left the House of Commons, he will execute a settlement which provides compensation on the same scale as that provided by the Bill in its original form. I have seen this undertaking and consents signed by all the persons concerned, including the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee, and I think that the House can feel assured that this aspect of the matter is quite in order.
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the first Amendment to this Bill—namely, in the Title to leave out the words "to preserve Arundel Castle for the benefit of the Nation 397 and as a residence for the Earl Marshal of England and".

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Earl for the great care which he has taken in explaining the position to the House. We understand entirely what has happened. We were concerned on the Second Reading of the Bill at the possible increase of statutory authority, as it were, for certain permanent positions in the State like that of the Earl Marshal. We drew attention to it, and it has been dealt with in another place. I think a proper settlement has been reached in the Amendments which have been made. It is obvious that the Lord Chairman has taken every possible care to see that the conditions required have been fulfilled. Therefore, I think that if we state from this side of the House on this first Amendment that we agree, we can take the other Amendments as being consequential.

THE EARL OF DROGHEDA
My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for what he has said. As he has indicated, the other Amendments to the Bill really hang together and are consequential upon the first Amendment, except so far as they deal with the omission of the provision for compensation of which I have already spoken.