HC Deb 24 June 1890 vol 345 cc1860-3

Order for Second Reading read.

(10.22.) THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BEODBICK,) Surrey, Guildford

The object of this Bill—which is one of very small scope—is to give power to divert certain roads and tracks which have become dangerous from their proximity to rifle ranges at which it has become necessary to stop shooting until the diversion can be effected. I have been in communication with several Members respecting the provisions of the Bill; and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has requested that a plan showing exactly what is proposed to be done shall be exhibited in the Library of the House. This request will be complied with. The Bill does not deal with a very extended area of land; but it is necessary that rifle practice should continue over the area affected, and that the public should be protected from the long range firing. It is impossible in a Bill of this scope to explain the exact changes which are proposed. They will form matter for consideration in Committee. I propose to move that the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee, so that if any individual thinks he is aggrieved he may have the opportunity of being heard by counsel or otherwise. I will not detain the Committee further, but will simply move that the Bill be read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

(10.25.) MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

This Bill is of a very exceptional character, because it proposes to stop up roads and footpaths over many thousand acres of land. I do not say at present whether this is right or wrong, but certainly it ought not to be done without great consideration in the interests of the public; it is sought to be effected without that public investigation in the locality which would be deemed necessary in other cases. For the present, however, I shall be satisfied if the changes are shown in the plan to be exhibited in the Library, and if the Bill is referred to a Hybrid Committee, before whom individuals interested can be heard without the necessity of appearing by counsel.

(10.27.) MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

It seems to me that the stopping of these footpaths must obviously be to the interest of the public, seeing that they are not safe to people traversing them by reason of the rifle shooting. But I should like to know who is to keep up the new roads and footpaths when they are established. If they are to be used exclusively by the military, I think they ought to be kept up at the expense of the War Office. If, however, they are going to be thrown upon the Local Authorities, care ought to be taken that they are properly made up before they are accepted.

(10.28.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I was glad to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, because they entirely justify the action I have thought it my duty to take, on several occasions, in refusing to allow the Bill to be taken after midnight. I have taken that course more than once, holding that the Government should not expect to be allowed to take important business after midnight when they have taken all the time of private Members before midnight. I am not going to oppose the passage of the measure, because I think it will probably be in the interest of the public. I cannot, however, accept the proposition laid down by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, who says it is in the interest of the public to stop the footpaths for the reason that if they used them they might get shot. It seems to me a most extraordinary doctrine that we should stop up footpaths because certain gentlemen, military or otherwise, want to shoot at long ranges. But I presume these alterations have in view the arrangements of the Rifle Association as well as those of the regular Military Authorities. It is impossible to criticise the proposals of the Government until we have the plan before us, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has promised to place a map in the Library. I think, however, that attention ought to be called to the exceptional power that is taken in the Bill to suspend occasionally existing rights of way. That seems to me a very novel proceeding which the Committee ought to carefully examine into. Then there is the clause which deals with compensation for the stopping up or the diversion of rights of way. The Board of Agriculture is to hold an inquiry and award such compensation as it may think just out of money to be provided by Parliament. I should have thought the President of the Board of Agriculture had his hands full already; but whether that is so or not, I object to the proposal to do away with the open inquiry in the locality which usually takes place when there is any question of the stopping up of public rights of way, and to place the matter in the hands of officials in any one of the Departments of the State. Where rights of way are in question, the Local Authorities, such as the County Councils, ought to be represented, and have their say. However, these matters may very properly be left to the examination and consideration of the Select Committee. I hope the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will see that the Committee is so comprised that it will give a fair hearing to all parties interested.

(10.32.) MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I feel obliged to make a few comments on this piece-meal legislation. There are ranges in other places besides Aldershot. I think it would be far more businesslike for the Government to bring in a Bill giving the Crown power to take land, and to pay for it in the ordinary way. I utterly fail to see why persons whose rights are taken away by the Crown or the Government should be sent to a State Board, while persons whose land is taken by a Railway Company can have recourse to the law. Why has the machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act been thrown overboard, and this perfectly new and undefined machinery adopted?

(10.35.) MR. BRODEICK

The hon. Member has, I think, overstated the change proposed to be made. The Board of Agriculture merely replaces the old Land Commission, and takes over the duties of that Board. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Jeffreys), the roads proposed to be made are award roads of 1826, and the Highway Boards are quite ready to take them over.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of seven Members:—Four to be nominated by the House, and three by the Committee of Selection.