County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 is repealed “other than sections 1 and 7 to 9 and so much of section 2 as is necessary to give effect to those sections.” Accordingly, section 8 of the Act remains in force. Submissions of the parties 66. Mr Drabble submits that Section 8 (preamble) and section 8(1) provide in mandatory terms for the laying out and maintenance of the relevant land referred to in the Act as the ‘new garden land’ (s.8(3)) as a garden for the public. Overall, the new garden land is an integral part of Victoria Tower Gardens, and cannot even be used as a separate or distinct garden with a different design. Consistent with the statutory obligation, the new garden land has been maintained for the past century by the Commissioners and its statutory successors in title as a garden open to the public and as an integral part of Victoria Tower Gardens. That obligation currently falls on the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport as the owner of the new garden land and ultimate statutory successor to the Commissioners of Works. 67. Mr Mould (whose submissions were endorsed by Mr Katkowski for the Secretary of State) submits that the legislative purpose of the protective provision enacted under s.8(1) of the 1990 Act was (i) the incorporation into the then existing Victoria Tower Gardens of the area of land to the south formed by the extension of the Thames Embankment to the riverside and the re-alignment of Millbank Street to the west; and (ii) the laying out and maintenance of that land as a public garden forming an integral part of Victoria Tower Gardens, subject to regulation by the Commissioners, in whom the land was to be vested under s.8(4) of the 1990 Act. That legislative purpose had been fulfilled by no later than 1914, as is apparent from an Ordnance Survey map of that year. By that date and no doubt earlier, the new garden land had been laid out and was already under maintenance as a garden open to the public and as an integral part of Victoria Tower Gardens as it existed in 1900 (see s.8(1) of the 1990 Act). The statutory objective in s. 8(1) was achieved when Victoria Tower Garden was laid out and vested in the Commissioners to maintain. Or, to use the express language of s.8(1), to maintain “as hereinafter provided” as a garden open to the public. Those words plainly look forward to s.8(8) of the 1900 Act and the maintenance obligation therein stated. No further provision was needed to be made for the protection of the Commissioners as the owners of the new garden land – they were plainly to be trusted to control the future use or development of Victoria Tower Gardens in accordance with those byelaws and regulations which they saw fit to impose. There was neither need nor any purpose in Parliament imposing a statutory prohibition on the future use or development of the new garden land, in those circumstances the legislature entrusted such matters to the Commissioners’ judgment. The plain words of s.8(1) of the 1900 Act impose no prohibition on development with the new garden land, or indeed any prohibition. Section 8(1) is concerned with requiring things to be done. It is not in any way (expressly or impliedly) concerned with prohibiting things from being done. Had Parliament intended s.8(1) to prohibit things being done in Victoria Tower Gardens after the new garden land had been laid out and integrated into the extended public garden, Parliament would have expressed itself in those terms. Mr Mould invited the Court to compare and contrast ss.8(15)(16)(18)(20)(21) of the 1900 Act, which contain express prohibitions. It is fanciful, he submitted, to suggest that Parliament nevertheless intended s.8(1) to operate as a prohibition by implication. 24