11 May, 1927.] waste or not, for any term not exceeding 100 years. Difficulties have arisen when, for instance, the Commissioners desired to grant land for the construction of a golf course or the erection of a club house, or the laying out of land for recreation purposes, which involved considerable expenditure. A lease of 31 years, which is all we can give for such purposes at present, is often found to be not enough, and that the expenditure will not be incurred unless a longer interest in the land can be given. We have not at present the power to do that. A tenant for life under the Settled Land Act can grant a building lease for as much as 999 years, a mining lease for 100 years, a forestry lease for 999 years, and any other lease for 50 years. We do not wish to grant forestry or building leases for terms like that, but we ask that we shall be given power to grant leases for 100 years in any event. The exercise of this power will be controlled by the Treasury, under Clause 21. Under that clause the consent of the Treasury is required. haps I might just refer you to Clause 21. Clause 21 says: "No purchase or sale, except a purchase or sale where the purchase money does not exceed one thousand pounds, and no exchange, lease or grant (not being a sale excepted as aforesaid) shall be made by the Commissioners of Crown Lands under any of the powers conferred on them by the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1906, or this Act, without the authority of the Treasury." That brings in a check to our powers, and a supervision of our powers in dealing with our land, except that under Subsection (2) of Clause 21, the Treasury may give us a general power to deal with land, or in any particular class of case.. Per That deals with Clause 4. Now we come to Clause 5. Here again we have taken the provisions of the Settled Land Act. It is to some extent an enlargement of the existing powers of the Commissioners, because at the present time we can only take fines in certain specific cases, as, for example, where at the time of the lease buildings exist on the land demised and are not intended to be rebuilt; and, moreover, the fine was not to exceed one-third of the present value of the rent for the whole of the term of the lease. But the sections of the Crown Lands Acts giving those powers are [Continued. rather complicated, and have on several occasions been found difficult to apply in cases where the Commissioners have wished in the best interests of the property under their management to take a fine for the grant of the lease. I think if you wish any more detail about that I will leave it for Mr. Stocks to give it you. Chairman.] Could you tell me this generally? Do all the old powers under your old Acts lapse, and are all the new powers as to leasing all contained in this Bill? Mr. Bidder.] If you look at page 19 of the Bill you will see that there is a Schedule in which we repeal the relevant sections of the Crown Lands Act, 1829. I think you may take it that wherever we take a power under one of these clauses in the Bill it corresponds to a repealed Clause on page 19. Chairman.] But you would still have to go to the old Acts for some of your powers. Mr. Bidder.] Oh, yes. This is not an entirely new Charter for the Commissioners. It is rather, so far as we have been dealing with it at present, improving their machinery and powers for managing their estates. I was dealing with Clause 5. Clause 5, in addition to fines, deals with the rent at which we may lease, and it has also certain other provisions which are taken out of the Settled Land Act, 1925, which is a pretty good precedent. Clauses 6 and 7, which are in respect to building leases and in respect to mining leases, are also transcripts from the Settled Land Act, 1925. The same applies to Clause 8, which enables us to deal with minerals separately from the surface. The same applies also to Clause 9, which deals with the power 10 grant water rights to statutory undertakers. Chairman.] You say these are powers given under the Settled Land Act? Mr. Bidder.] They are powers which are in the Settled Land Act, 1925, and also in the Universities and Colleges Estates Act, and which we ask for for ourselves. They are simply the same wording as in the Settled Land Act. They are transcripts from that Act. Clause 10 is slightly different. Clause 10 enables us to give land for certain purposes, as you will see in the sub-sections, for a nominal consideration for churches, school houses, town halls, 11 May, 1927.] [Continued. market houses, public libraries, and other similar purposes; for the construction, enlargement or improvement of any railway, canal, road, dock, sea wall, etc.; for public improvement purposes, and for any other public or charitable purposes in connection with any Crown land; subject to the limitation contained in the last paragraph of the clause. This clause is an enlargement of our present power, because at the present moment we have not power to give land for those purposes; we have only power to give money. We had power, but we lost it in 1894. The Crown Lands Act, 1894, repealed a section in the 1829 Act previously in force, though as a matter of fact it had not been used for a number of years, which gave us power to set aside land such as this. The Act of 1894 substituted the power of giving money, but we now think we should find it convenient if the power of giving land was restored to us. The exercise of all these powers is subject to the Treasury approval. Mr. Maxton.] Which clause says that these things are subject to Treasury approval? Mr. Bidder.] Clause 21, which says: "No purchase or sale, except a purchase or sale where the purchase money does not exceed one thousand pounds, and no exchange, lease or grant (not being a sale excepted as aforesaid) shall be made by the Commissioners of Crown Lands under any of the powers conferred on them by the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1906, or this Act, without the authority of the Treasury." Mr. Maxton.] This clause 10 is covered by the word " grant" in Clause 21. It Mr. Bidder.] Yes. Then we come to Clause 11. Clause 11 enables us to dedicate land for streets and open spaces, and really to take part in a building scheme or a scheme to lay out. It is Section 56 of the Settled Land Act. does not give the Commissioners any greater power than a tenant for life has under that Act, but it has been thought right, as it alienates land from the Crown, that His Majesty's consent should be required before the dedication can be made. That applies also to Clause 10. Clause 12 deals with a sligntly complicated state of affairs which I might very briefly indicate to you. The Royal Parks were transferred to the Commissioners of Works in 1851. There were, however, specially excepted from that transfer the houses in the Royal Parks, and they therefore did not come under the Commissioners of Works. Those houses which were leased at the time were left under the control of the Commissioners of Woods as they then were, or the Commissioners of Crown Lands as they are now; but the houses which were not leased appear to have got somewhat left out, and it does not seem that there is any power to lease a house which at that time was not leased. That state of things is sought to be regularised here, and it is sought to make it clear that we have power to lease such houses. Chairman.] Why were the Royal Parks treated separately from the rest of the Royal property? All the Crown lands, as I understand, were the personal property of the Sovereign. Mr. Bidder.] They were. Chairman.] Then they were surrendered by him, and they are surrendered at the beginning of each Reign. Mr. Bidder.] Yes. This is only as to which servant of the Sovereign shall look after them. They are still in the hands of the Government. On the change of the Crown they could all be resumed by the Crown. In 1851 the Royal Parks and Kensington Gardens and Hampton Court were handed over to the Commissioners of Works. It was only a question of administration, but in that handing over, while they excepted those houses being handed over to the Commissioners of Works, and while that gave the Commissioners of Woods power to deal with the houses which were then leased, there were certain houses that were not leased, and what we are asking for is power to deal with those houses. That is what it comes to. It is purely an administrative question; there is no principle about it at all. That deals with Clause 12. Then Clause 13 is again from the Settled Land Act. It is Section 90 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and it gives the Commissioners power to enter into contracts for dealing with land. Now we come to Clause 14, which is adapted from the Settled Land Act. The Commissioners have power already under the Crown Lands Acts to carry out improvements, and the Treasury has power to direct the cost to be charged to capital; but where they give such direction, provision has to be made for the repayments of capital out of income within a prescribed period. This clause 11 May, 1927.] extends improvements which the Commissioners may carry out to all those set out in the Third Schedule of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and provides that the Treasury may authorise the Commissioners to carry the cost to capital. Hitherto all improvements have had to be found out of revenue. That is the difference. Otherwise this clause is merely giving us a better form of procedure. Chairman.] It is limited to those improvements specified in the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act. Mr. Bidder.] That is so. Chairman.] Then you are empowered by this clause to pay for them out of capital, or out of income as the Treasury direct? Mr. Bidder.] As the Treasury authorises. Chairman.] The Treasury have complete control? Mr. Bidder.] Yes. Mr. Maxton.] Does it empower them to borrow money? Mr. Bidder.] No. Chairman.] Not in the whole Bill? Mr. Maxton.] Where do you find the money for capital expenditure? Chairman.] As I understand, you have a revenue of £1,400,000. Mr. Bidder.] We have £2,500,000 invested in capital. Chairman.] As well? Mr. Bidder.] As well. Chairman.] Then you are constantly getting fines on leases, and some sales? Mr. Bidder.] There is a very large revenue. That revenue goes to the Government of the country. There is, of course, in nearly all those receipts a capital element. For instance, fines are a capital element. Chairman.] Will you explain to us why, if for all these years you have got along paying out of income, you should now want to pay out of capital? Mr. Bidder.] It appears to be a more reasonable thing that in the keeping of our accounts capital charges should go against capital instead of coming out of revenue. The effect, of course, of not doing it would be that the revenue would be rather less, and that this £2,500,000 of invested capital, the income of which goes to the Government, would get rather larger. [Continued. Chairman.] Do we understand that the balance of the revenue each year goes to the general revenue of the country? Mr. Bidder.] Yes, that is so. Mr. Maxton.] It is put, presumably, into some security or other? Mr. Bidder.] It is put into trustee securities. Mr. Maxton.] It would have to be realised to meet any cost? are Mr. Bidder.] Yes. You will see there is a current capital account. There are capital moneys always coming in. There are such things as fines, for instance, as I suggested just now, and there other elements of receipt which must go to capital. So that I imagine they have always got a certain amount in their current account which will have to be invested at some time as capital if not disposed of otherwise. Chairman.] Would you mind answering my question. Why, if you have got on with income for all these years, do you want to change it, unless it is to hand over more to the general revenue of the country at the cost of the Crown Lands? Mr. Bidder.] It does have that effect, but we submit at the same time that it is the correct way of doing it, on the principles on which estates are managed in general, and of course the principle which is laid down by Parliament for private settled estate, which is after all very analogous to those in the Settled Land Act. Chairman.] If it is strictly limited to improvements there might be something in that. However, we will leave that until we come to the Clauses. Mr. B.dder.] Mr. Berry points out that the Settled Land Act, 1925, was itself a re-consideration of how these sums ought to be treated, and this is the decision of Parliament with respect to private estates. We ask that it should be applied to this, which is really and truly a private estate too. Chairman.] I see the last part of the clause does give the Treasury a right to call on you to put the money back if they think you ought to spend out of income. Mr. Bidder.] Yes. Chairman.] When you come to Clause 14 in going through the Clauses, you can give us your considered views on that. Mr. Bidder.] Then comes Clause 15. There has been in the past a practice 11 May, 1927.] [Continued. that assumed that the instruments in respect of the transfer of Crown Lands did not require stamp duty, and that was even carried so far as to apply in the case of one holder of a right under the Crown transferring to another holder for a considerable sum. Even in such a case as that the document did not carry stamp duty. Chairman.] Do you mean that up till now if a private person bought land from the Crown Lands Commissioners he did not pay any stamp duty on his purchase money? Mr. Bidder.] That was true, but I understand it was even more than that. If one lessee was transferring to another lessee for good consideration or even for a very large sum, as it was a transfer of a Crown lease, there was no stamp duty payable. Chairman.] I do not think you need trouble much about that clause. Mr. Bidder.] Then sub-clause (2) of Clause 15 deals with a very small point. Under the present law any person appointed to be a receiver of the issue, revenues and profits of the possessions and land revenues of the Crown must reside in the district for which he is appointed. In the case of certain officials who live in London there are certain comparatively minor revenues which would come under that, and which they should deal with, but Section 80 of the Crown Lands Act, 1829, stands in the way. It is really no longer applicable in these days, and we ask that that condition should be removed. Chairman.] That seems reasonable. What about the last part of the clause? Why should not the receiver give security as every other receiver does? Mr. Bidder.] The Treasury pointed out that it contravenes an established principle that the State shall not insure, and the Treasury have asked that this section shall be repealed. Chairman.] Is the receiver a State official? Mr. Bidder.] Yes, he is. Chairman.] I thought he might be somebody outside? Mr. Bidder.] I am informed that there are receivers in both classes; some who are officials of the State, and some who are ordinary professional men employed for the purpose. Chairman.] Why should not the special men employed outside as receivers to collect money on the estate give security, the same as other receivers ? Mr. Bidder.] The argument they put forward is this. The Government as a whole has adopted a definite principle that it pays them not to insure. De manding this bond is only insurance in the second remove, because they have to give a bigger salary because a man has to produce a bond. Coming to Clause 16, this clause removes a difficulty that has occurred because a certain modification has been made in the machinery by an Order in Council which, however, cannot properly affect the previous statutory provision. The Crown Lands Act, 1851, which divided the Office of Works from the Office of Woods, provided in Section 7 that all officers thereafter to be appointed to the Department of Woods and Forests should be appointed by the Treasury, and might be removed by the Commissioners of Woods. An Order in Council of 1870 provided that all appointments made after the 31st August, 1870, in various departments therein mentioned, including the Office of Woods, should be by means of a competitive examination. This course has been followed since 1870, and appointments have not been made by the Treasury specifically. But as an Act of Parliament cannot be repealed or amended by an Order in Council, the legal position as regards appointments to the Office is not satisfactory, and this is to put it straight. So that now they will be appointed definitely by the Commissioners themselves. Chairman.] Is that after examination? Mr. Bidder.] No, the competitive examination is left there just the same, but the appointment is made when the examination is over. Hitherto it has been rather a mystery as to how they have been appointed. The Treasury have ceased to appoint, and the Commissioners really had no power. This brings them into line with all the other Government Departments. It does not alter the examination principle in any way. Mr. Maxton.] There is no outside recruitment of staff to this Department other than by the general competitive examination? Mr. Bidder.] The answer, I understand, is no, except for certain exceptions which are provided by Treasury regulations for all Departments. The conditions in this Department are alto 11 May, 1927.] gether in line now with the other Departments. Chairman.] Are all your rent collectors and people of that sort Government officials? Mr. Bidder.] The answer to that is that they are partly Government officials and partly ordinary professional men who are employed. The answer I gave about the recruitment of staff referred, of course, to the administrative staff of the Department, and not to employees of that character. Chairman.] But the administrative staff are under exactly the same condiGovernment tions as the rest of the staff? Mr. Bidder.] That is so. Mr. Maxton.] How would you recruit a land steward-a person skilled in the management and cultivation of land? He would not be recruited by competitive examination? Mr. Bidder.] No, it does not apply to people of that sort. What actually happens in connection with work of that character is that they employ outside firms, land agent firms, to do the land agent work. The competitive examina tion refers to the actual administrative staff in the Commissioners' own Office. Sometimes they employ Counsel. Mr. Maxton.] I am not thinking so much of that kind of person as of the resident full-time responsible agent on a particular estate, which you presumably have? Mr. Bidder.] I am informed that the practice is not to have separate agents such as you suggest on separate estates, but to employ large firms of land agents who will manage the estates of the Commissioners over a comparatively large area of country. Chairman.] You do not have resident agents of your own, I understand? Mr. Bidder.] No ,I understand that is the case. We leave the actual management in the hands of professional firms. Coming to Clause 17, this clause is in respect of churches or chapels, and is intended to clear up doubts. The main point is this. We require rather more than the usual provision which limits a right of re-entry (which is required in order to see that such land is kept for the purposes for which it is given) to the time limit authorised by the Rule against Perpetuities, which of course is a life or lives in being and twenty-one [Continued. years afterwards. We want to be allowed perpetually, in view of our nature and the nature of the transaction. Chairman.] We will go into those minor provisions when we come to them. Clause 18 is, I think, the same. Tell us about Clause 19, will you? 66 Mr. Bidder.] Clause 19 arises in this way. When the War Office and Admiralty were built there was a chapel called St. Matthew's chapel, in Spring Gardens. The Public Offices Site Act, 1882, which arranged for the taking over of the sites, also provided for what should happen to the money which was the product paid over for the site of that chapel, among other things. In respect of the first part of it, that was handed over to the Vicar and Churchwardens of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. Then it was provided that the residue should accumulate and be used for purposes which are set out in the section of that Act, namely: with the consent of the Lord Bishop of the Diocese of London, from time to time apply the said investments and moneys in or towards the cost of providing a church or chapel or of enlarging a church or chapel in the said diocese only after having regard to the advantage which any lessees or tenants of the Crown, their servants and dependants may derive or be likely to derive from the proximity of the church or chapel to Crown property ". That is a trust which at present is held by the Commissioners. Two things are asked to be done by this Clause. First of all it is asked that the Commissioners may transfer the capital sum which amounts, I think at the present time, to £7,758, in 2 per cent. Consols, to the London Diocesan Fund, which is of course fund set up by the recent Enabling Measure under the control of the Board of Finance of the London Diocese. The Diocesan Boards of Finance Measure, 1925, is the authority under which the proposed transferee fund was created, but since the lessees and tenants of the Crown, their servants and dependants, have now ample church accommodation in that vicinity and there is no longer necessity to provide for them, it is asked that the money may be used generally for the purposes of churches in the London Diocese and for being applied for the erection or repair of churches in any part of the said Diocese a |