§ (1) Where the Road Board propose to construct a new road under this Part of this Act the Board may acquire land for the purpose, and the land so acquired may include land on either side of the proposed road within two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the proposed road.
§ (2) The Road Board may acquire, erect, and furnish such offices and other buildings as they may require, and may acquire land for the purpose.
§ (3) Where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, or an advance is made to such an authority in respect of the improvement of an existing road, the authority may acquire land for the purpose of such construction or improvement.
§ (4) For the purpose of the purchase of land by agreement under this Part of this Act by the Road Board or a highway authority the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Part of this Act, except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement, and Section one hundred and seventy-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply as if the Road Board and the highway authority were referred to therein.
§ (5) The Road Board or any highway authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of this Part of this Act in like manner as a body to whom an advance has been made under Part I. of this Act may be empowered to acquire land for the purposes of that Part, and the provisions of that Part regulating the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land shall apply accordingly, and the provisions of that Part prohibiting the compulsory acquisition of the classes of land mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section five of this Act shall
| Division No. 797.] | AYES. | [6.45 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Clough, William |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bowerman, C. W. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Beale, W. P. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Cornwall. Sir Edwin A. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Byles, William Pollard | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Cullinan, J. |
§ apply to the acquisition by the Road Board of land on either side of a road proposed to be constructed by the Board.
§ (6) The Road Board shall have full power, with the approval of the Treasury, to sell, lease, and manage any land acquired by them under this Part of this Act and not required for the new road.
§ Viscount MORPETH moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words from the word "purpose" ["may acquire land for the purpose, and the land so acquired"] to the end of the Sub-section.
§ As the Bill was originally brought in land in boroughs and in urban districts was exempted. That was amended upstairs, and now the Road Board has power to acquire strips of land both in urban and rural districts. In urban districts there is some case to be met in this provision, and it is necessary, because the matter has already been dealt with by the Finance Bill. If new roads have been made, and increment accrues, it can be taken under that Bill. In rural districts, on the contrary, there is no advantage, but a great disadvantage. There will be no increment. The estate acquired by the Road Board will be of a most inconvenient size, as any person acquainted with rural life will know, and it will be extraordinarily inconvenient to the inhabitants that the Road Board should buy these strips. Owing to the lateness of the hour I will not go into the matter at length, but so far as I am concerned I must carry it to a Division. If I say no more it must not be considered that it is because I do not regard the subject as one of very great importance. The objection of my hon. Friends on this side of the House is very strong indeed.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI second the Amendment.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI assure the Noble Lord that I will not judge of the importance that he attaches to the question by the shortness of his speech.
§ Question put, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 14.
| Curran, Peter Francis | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Erskine, David C. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Scott, A. H. (Ashten-under-Lyne) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Mallet, Charles E. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Falconer, James | Massie, J. | Seddon, J. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Masterman, C. F. G. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Molteno, Percy Alport | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Napier, T. B. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Gulland, John W. | Nolan, Joseph | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Verney, F. W. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Vivian, Henry |
| Hazleton, Richard | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Reddy, M. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Hogan, Michael | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lamont, Norman | Rogers, F. E. Newman | |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Rose, Sir Charles Day | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain |
| Lupton, Arnold | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Norton and Mr. Whitley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | M'Arthur, Charles | |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Renton, Leslie | Morpeth and Mr. Stewart Bowles. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the land so acquired may include," and to insert instead thereof the words "may in addition require."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
§ Mr. CHAPLIN moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "two hundred and."
§ There are now less than 100 Members present, and this affords a striking commentary on the way this Bill is being proceeded with. Under the Bill as it stands the Road Board has power to take land to the extent of a quarter of a mile wide. What, can be the object of taking power to make a road that width when the object of the measure is simply to make roads to connect one locality with another? The effect of my Amendment will be to make the width 40 yards or 120 feet, and surely that is wide enough for any road that can be required. What are the reasons for proposing this very unusual width? I can see innumerable objections to this proposal, and I can see no grounds upon which it can be justified. This is supposed to be a measure for the benefit of agriculture, but how are farms to be conducted with a road 440 yards wide driven between them? See what the position will be if that happens habitually, as will be the case if this Clause is made use of. To what purposes are these roads to be put, and how wide are they to be made? What is contemplated? Are they to be more than 100 feet wide, and, if not, what is to become of all the rest of the 2440 land? I move the Amendment in order to obtain from the Government some information as to the reasons for these extraordinary provisions.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe right hon. Gentleman talks about the intention to run roads of a quarter of a mile wide—
§ Mr. CHAPLINI did not say that. I said we had been told that these roads were to be limited to very short distances, and I asked what was the object of these extraordinary provisions.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt has been explained over and over again that this is merely dealing with the question of betterment. There are two questions: Are you to lay a betterment charge upon the neighbourhood or are you to take the right to purchase the land which is bettered by the new road? There is no intention of taking strips a quarter of a mile all down the sides of a new road: but, where there seems the possibility of a substantial betterment accruing to the land by the existence of the new road, then we take the power to deal with it, not as part of a new road, but under Sub-section (6).
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThe answer of the hon. Gentleman would have been more complete if he had explained why it is confined to the new Road Board, and not extended to highway authorities. This is really not a considered scheme of recoupment at all, but a relic of a gigantic, 2441 megalomaniac scheme which was originally designed to run motor roads through the country as competitors with the railways. I think the Amendment or some slight extension of it would give the Government everything they require for the purpose of recoupment, but it appears to me absolutely ridiculous to ask for this gigantic power to take a quarter of a mile.
§ Mr. CHAPLINThe Under-Secretary has given no answer whatever to the questions I ask, nor has he afforded me one single substantial practical reason for this proposal. We are told these powers are only to be used in most exceptional cases. That is the answer given to every Amendment we have raised. I am not disposed to take much further part in what seems to me to be something very little removed from a farce which is being enacted in the House of Commons this afternoon. I regret it more than I can say. I gather from some cheers in the House this afternoon that hon. Members like it. But there are other people who watch our proceedings here, and we may depend upon it they will not lose sight of what has occurred. When proposals of this extraordinary character are made—proposals of a purely novel nature—made at a time and under circumstances when full and adequate discussion is absolutely out of the question, and submitted to a House of les3 than 100 Members, I think I am entitled to renew this evening the protest I made at the commencement of the proceedings against the conduct of this Bill.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy and long Parliamentary experience, will allow me to say a few words in defence of the position of the Government in this matter and against the accusations which he has made. It is quite true that the attendance in the House is not very large, but in some of the Divisions nearly 200 votes have been recorded, and constantly the attendance on Friday afternoons has been far below that. In addition I may point out that the attendance on this side compares very favourably with that in other quarters. Far be it from me to suggest that the business this afternoon has not been conducted in a perfectly orderly and effective fashion. The right hon. Gentleman has addressed the Committee several times; we have listened to his arguments, and never on any occasion have we failed to make a reply. The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters may not 2442 have been satisfied with the replies, but we certainly have accepted some Amendments. Work is not more effectively done because it takes a long time; it can be equally well done if treated in a businesslike fashion. We on our part have had no desire to rush this Bill through. An offer was made by the Prime Minister that either the Bill should be finished to-day or that the discussion might be continued on Saturday and on Monday and any number of days next week. No pressure was brought to bear upon anybody to bring the matter to a head this afternoon, but it seemed to be the desire in all parts of the House to get the Bill through to-day. The efforts have been in the direction of making the Bill useful as it emerges from this stage, and I think it will be found to be so. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, having made his protest, does not object to my answering his attacks upon the Government.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGIt is perfectly true what the Solicitor-General has said that there has been no pressure brought to bear on the Opposition to conclude the business to-night, but he will remember, and the House will realise, that the conditions under which the offer was made to us were of an extremely peculiar character. Those conditions and the period of the Session at which the offer has been made has led to the criticism of my right hon. Friend. The Solicitor-General thought fit to ignore the fact that the offer was made to the Opposition that they might sit to-morrow—not a very generous offer of the Government The alternative offer was that we should reassemble on Monday. As far as I am concerned, I should be content to come on Monday, but as the Solicitor-General has said, there was a general feeling, not confined to this side of the House, that it would be extremely unfair to bring Members of Parliament back, for one or two days next week if that could be avoided, and when it was the intention of the Government to offer Members some relaxation from the very heavy labours they have been engaged in this Session. My hon. Friend and I have stated on more than one occasion that we have nothing to complain of as regards the Solicitor-General's conduct of the Bill, or of the conduct of those who have assisted him. We agree as to the courtesy and fairness they have shown in conducting the Bill, and I agree that this has been a businesslike discussion in every sense; but, on the other hand, I do not believe 2443 many Members of this House will deny the proposition that a Bill of this kind, involving proposals which must have far-reaching effects on the local government of this country, should be discussed as it has been discussed in a very thin House and at the fag-end of a period of very hard work. That is a legitimate complaint.
§ Mr. BARNARDWe went into the whole thing most fully in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon called it a farce, and said the country would remember it. The country, I hope, will remember that there is not a single Conservative agricultural Member in the House whilst this discussion is going on.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: To leave out—"(5) The Road Board or any highway authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of this Part of this Act in like manner as a body to whom an advance has been made under Part I. of this Act may be empowered to acquire land for the purposes of that Part, and the provisions of that Part regulating the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land shall apply accordingly, and the provisions of that Part," and to insert instead thereof "(5) Where the Road Board or any highway authority are unable to acquire by agreement on reasonable terms any land which they consider necessary, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act. Provided that the Provisions of Part I. of this Act."
§ Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause to add the words "and any receipts derived from any such land, so far as they are applied for the purposes of the construction of new roads, shall not be treated as part of the expenditure of the Road Board on new roads for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting the amount of expenditure of the Road Board on new roads."