LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL (Hansard, 17 June 1958)

EARL BATHURST
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE
My Lords, I do not propose to move either of the Amendments standing in my name, and if your Lordships will permit me I should like to give an explanation. I was able to table those Amendments only late on Friday evening, having received instructions from the River Boards' Association in the country in the morning. I did what I could, just in time. The River Boards' Association have had further discussions with the Government Departments concerned, and as a result of those discussions the Association have received assurances that the matters which I should otherwise have raised by my Amendments will be satisfactorily dealt with by legislative action. It was also indicated that such concurrence of views would be put in writing for the benefit of the records kept by the River Boards' Association. Lastly, I would thank those Departments for their understanding of our difficulties, and express regret for the late tabling of the Amendments on the Report stage—it was unavoidable on our part, as we assemble representatives from the length and breadth of this country only at stated intervals, and the last full meeting occurred early last week.

EARL BATHURST
My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Albemarle for not moving his Amendments, and to hasten to assure him, as my noble friend has said, that the interests of the drainage boards are in no way detrimentally affected by this Bill. As the noble Lord has asked, I will see that the Departments concerned write to him to make it quite clear that this is so.
This somewhat complicated but modest Bill has passed through its various stages in your Lordships' House and another place, and has generally met with assent. I shall, therefore, with your Lordships' 1004 permission, deal only with the two points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he moved and withdrew his Amendments, and that raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. The noble Viscount suggested that inconvenience would possibly be caused to farmers, landowners and others when manœuvres are being held, in that they would have to make great research into the various Manœuvres Acts dating back to 1897. I assure the noble Viscount that the new Manœuvres Commission will be a most vital and approachable body, and in any case most of the problems will be capable of solution on the spot. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, however, to consolidate all these various Manœuvres Acts, going back to 1897, and to bring them all up to date in one Act, together with the relevant clauses of this Bill.
With regard to Clause 10 and the Amendment withdrawn by my noble friend Lord Dundee, I am most grateful to him for bringing the attention of your Lordships to this point. It has been most closely looked into, and I am glad to say that we have found, as I intimated to my noble friend, that this point was groundless. My noble friend was afraid that an owner would not be notified of any work that was to be commenced upon his land and would not have the opportunity of removing offending obstructions himself. It is quite clear from the Second Schedule, at page 33, line 36, that the owner will, in fact, be notified. The circumstances envisaged by my noble friend would arise only if the owner were to object or if the owner could not be found, and I think that that last point would be a very rare case indeed; nevertheless, it happens. In the case of objections being raised by the owner a full inquiry would be held by a tribunal, with an independent chairman, which would be appointed by my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack, under the Franks Committee's recommendations. If it were a case for compensation, then the compensation would be decided by the Lands Tribunal, as is stated on page 15, line 36; and in Scotland it would be by the official arbiter, under Clause 25, page 29, line 37. And, of course, as is also stated in the Bill, the owner would have the full right to sell the timber, stone or salvage that was involved with the removal of such objects or property.
1005 We are referring to a compulsory order upon an owner which must be carried out. In the event of a refusal by the owner, or of his inability to remove such objects, it is necessary that the onus should be put upon the occupier, after due inquiry and with due compensation, for the lull loss and for damages incurred. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for drawing your Lordships' attention to this point and for withdrawing his Amendment; and I trust it is now quite clear that his fears are unfounded. My noble friend's second Amendment was to Clause 25, at page 29, line 23. The Amendment sought to remove from the definition of owner—

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but I should like to be clear as to exactly what we are doing. It looks as if the noble Earl is replying to Amendments which have not been moved, and which it is not intended to move; and he is making the speech he would have made if those Amendments had been moved. As the matter stands at the moment, there are no Amendments.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, the Amendments were moved in Committee and withdrawn.

§ LORD SILKIN
We are now on the Report stage, and I am wondering exactly what is the procedure that we are adopting in this case. I should have thought that the noble Earl's speech that he is making now would have been appropriate on the Third Reading. I wonder whether it is appropriate on the Report stage, when there is nothing before us. There are no Amendments.

EARL BATHURST
I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I promised my noble friend that I would make it clear that his fears were unfounded, and therefore he withdrew his Amendment. But I would certainly, if your Lordships would wish it, and if I have your Lordships' permission, state that fact on Third Reading or at any other time your Lordships wish.

§ LORD SILKIN
I do not mind the noble Earl going on, but I wanted to know what was the procedure. I should have thought it rather unorthodox for him to continue and that his speech would have been more appropriate on Third Reading.

EARL BATHURST
Perhaps it would be better if these points were brought out on Third Reading. I am most grateful to the noble Lord opposite.