HC Deb 21 August 1916 vol 85 cc2355-68

  1. (1) Where, in the exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty or any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm for purposes connected with the present War, any 2356 railway or tramway has been laid along, across, over or under any public highway, it shall be lawful after the termination of the War for the railway or tramway to continue to be used and maintained subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may by order prescribe, and any local authority responsible for the maintenance of the highway may apply to the Board to make such an order.
  2. (2) Where in exercise of any such right or powers as aforesaid any public highway has been closed, it may be kept closed after the termination of the present War, but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained, and the Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway in the place of the highway so closed, and any person interested in any land adjoining any highway so closed who suffers loss or damage in consequence of the closing thereof shall be entitled to such compensation as, in default of agreement, the Commission determine to be the amount of such loss or damage.

Dr. ADDISON

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "has" ["tramway has been laid"], and to insert instead thereof the words "or any cable, line or pipes have."

Sir F. BANBURY

Will the right hon. Gentleman give some explanation of the Amendment?

Dr. ADDISON

The Amendment is to make perfectly clear that the Clause applies to any cable, line or pipes which may have been laid under our highways for telephones, and so on. They are not specifically mentioned in the Clause as drafted, and at an earlier stage of the discussion they were referred to specifically, and these words are to carry out what was suggested.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HARDY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["it shall be lawful"], to insert the word "not."

This Amendment is in connection with another Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words "maintained subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may by order prescribe, and any local authority responsible for maintenance of the highway may apply to the Board to make such an order," and to insert instead thereof the words "except with the consent of the Commission after hearing the local and road authorities, and the Commission shall have power to prescribe an alternative route for such railway or tramway, and, having regard to any agreement affecting the laying of any such railway or tramway, to impose such conditions as may be thought fit." The Government also have an Amendment on the Paper, and I think the beet plan is to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state now exactly what the Government intend to do on this Clause, before proceeding to any argument on my part.

Sir G. CAVE

I think it will be better to take my Amendment to the Sub-section instead of that of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a better one than his in some respects, that is, that it will bring in not only the road authority but also railway companies or tramway companies, or other persons who may be responsible for the maintenance of the highways. There are cases where not the local authority, but some individual or some other authority, such as a railway company, may be liable to maintain the highway. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend's Amendment is better than mine in this respect, that it brings in not only the road authorities, but the local authorities, which, of course, are different bodies. I should be quite willing to put in the words "local authorities" if that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. HARDY

The right hon. Gentleman cannot say whether he is going to give the Commission powers about alternative routes. It is almost necessary to have some kind of statement as to whether the Commission should have power to decide alternative routes. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to limit the user.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

I have an Amendment on the Paper dealing to some extent with the same matter. My Amendment goes further, in giving greater power to the local authorities, and if we could come to terms upon the point I should be glad. I think we want some limit of time, probably two years, or something of that kind. Here it is left entirely to the Board of Trade. If it is left to the Board of Trade for a period not to exceed two years or six months after the termination of the War, that might meet the case. We do not want anything except that the local authorities, who are only too glad to do-anything while the War is going on, shall be able to resume possession of their rights.

Sir G. CAVE

I know it was suggested, at one stage, that there should be some limit of time, but I think, after a discussion, that was given up. There are great difficulties in putting any limit of time. On the other hand, as to what my right hon. Friend (Mr. L. Hardy) has said, I think that the words of the Bill empower the Board of Trade to impose conditions upon the Government Department, and to require, as a condition, that alternative routes shall be provided. That is the intention of the Bill, and I think that is the effect of it. If it is not, I promise my right hon. Friend that I will bring up words on Report, and I will carefully consider the matter before that stage.

Sir F. BANBURY

The Amendment of my right hon. Friend substitutes the Commission for the Board of Trade, and that seems to me to be the better authority. After all, it is an independent authority in no way allied to the Government; whereas the Board of Trade is a Government Department, and what will happen? One Government Department will appeal to the other Government Department. The Munitions Department may wish to do a certain thing which would be most inconvenient to the locality, and the Munitions Department would go to the Board of Trade, which is another Government Department, to have their case decided. I have no doubt that the Board of Trade would act fairly in the matter, but I do not think it is right that one Government Department should appeal to another Government Department. Therefore, I think that, after all, the Commission should be the tribunal, and it is one that the Government themselves have set up in this Bill. It is a competent tribunal, because it is not merely a Railway and Canal Commission, but has a competent knowledge of all these matters. It seems to me that the proper course would be to substitute the Commission for the Board of Trade. If the Solicitor-General undertook to do that I think we might agree to the Amendment, if it be so altered.

Mr. L. HARDY

The idea which I submitted on behalf of the county council is this: They feel that it is desirable to get an independent tribunal in connection with this matter. Of course, the Railway and Canal Commission is by far the most suitable body to deal with the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says he will consider the matter carefully before the Report stage, I cannot very well resist him, as he has been very good about meeting us, and I should like him to consider this question.

Sir G. CAVE

I will do that, but I hope my right hon. Friend will see that the Board of Trade has not only to deal with the question of highways, but it has to deal with the question of the safety of the public and matters of that kind, and I am a little unwilling, without consideration, to take away the authority from them and give it to the Commission. The Board of Trade are accustomed to deal with these matters from day to day, and I think that they ought to have a voice in the matter. Having said that, I shall be very glad indeed to consider the question before the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "tramway" ["railway or tramway to continue"], insert the words "or any cable, line, or pipes have."— [Dr. Addison.]

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Trade" ["Board of Trade may by order"], to insert the words, "after giving the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway or of any other railway or tramway laid thereon an opportunity of being heard."

I have inserted in the Amendment on the Paper the words "local authority."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words, "local authority responsible for the maintenance of the highway," and insert instead thereof the words "any such authority or person."

Mr. WHITE

I beg to move at the end, to add new Sub-section:

(2) In the event of the use of any such railway or tramway being discontinued, the Government Department by whom it was laid down or used shall take up and remove the rails and restore the road or street on which they are laid to the satisfaction of the local authority responsible for the maintenance of such road or street.

I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Glasgow Corporation. In Glasgow the Government laid rails in public streets and barricaded them at each end, and the public have been deprived of their use. The Corporation take no exception to that during the War period, but they object to the continuance of the barricades after the termination of the War, unless with the consent of the local authority, whose duty it is to secure the user of the public streets. The reason why the corporation are putting this forward is this: they agreed to the Government laying rails in the public streets, but made it a condition with the Director of Munitions in Scotland that on the use of the rails being discontinued they were to be removed and the street restored to the satisfaction of the Master of Works. A doubt has arisen because the Corporation are advised that the Bill would have the effect of overriding that agreement, and therefore that it is necessary and desirable to put this provision into the Bill.

Sir G. CAVE

I do not see why this Amendment should not be accepted.

Sir R. ADKINS

There is also a question as to the use of level crossings, and that that use should only last for two years after the War except with the consent of the local authority. I understood that the Government was prepared to do that, and I put no Amendment down on the point. The use of the level crossings is now under certain circumstances a very great nuisance, but of course everyone is perfectly ready to agree to it during the War, but if it is going to be kept up beyond two years, and perhaps for four or five or six, it is likely to seriously interfere with the safety, improvement, and maintenance of the roads. If the Government propose to use the level crossing over two years they ought to provide a tunnel or bridge except where the use is continued with the consent of the local authority. That might be given where the traffic is small and where there would be no real danger. I accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that an Amendment would be inserted dealing with this point and otherwise it would have been very fully discussed.

Sir G. CAVE

Yes, we propose to put an Amendment in that after two years no level crossing shall be used—

Sir R. ADKINS

Except by the consent of the local authority.

Sir G. CAVE

Yes. We shall insert it on Report.

Sir R. ADKINS

I am very much obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).

I move on behalf of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley). The Sub-section provides that any public highway that has been closed may be kept closed after the War not beyond twelve months except with the consent of the Commission, which may require the provision of another highway as a condition of their consent. That seems to be going rather far, because it gives power with the consent of the Commission to close highways indefinitely. There has always been very strong objection to the closing of highways, and I do not think it is absolutely necessary to give the Government such drastic power as is here proposed. It can only be in one or two instances that the highway is required to be closed. I quite understand that during the War we must not do anything that will in any kind of way hamper the Government in their desire to provide munitions, and it may be necessary to close a highway leading to a certain factory during the carrying on of the War. If after the War it is found necessary to carry on the factory, surely they can make another approach to it or can deviate tile highway so as not to incommode the inhabitants. It might cost a little money to do so, but it is not right after the War to keep highways closed. There is a further Amendment dealing with the question of right of way.

Dr. ADDISON

The reason why words to this effect are necessary in the Bill is that in some places we have actually erected factories where there was once a road. The Sub-section provides that in those cases the Government have to provide another road—another means of access.

Sir F. BANBURY

Have they done that?

Dr. ADDISON

Yes. There are a few cases where the buildings or parts of factories are actually standing where the roadway was originally, and to restore that roadway you would have to pull the factory down.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not know the Government had gone so far as to take the highway or high road to build a factory right across it. I do not quite see the object of doing so, and it seems most extraordinary.

Dr. ADDISON

Oh, not at all! Some of these factories are very extensive and cover very large tracts of ground. It happened in two or three cases that the highway did actually run across portion of the ground which it was necessary to take.

Sir F. BANBURY

However big the factory, there must be a very large extent of ground on either side of the highway which they could have used. Presumably, they did not know there was a highway.

Dr. ADDISON

Yes, we did.

Sir F. BANBURY

Then I do not quite understand. The highway is not more than forty or fifty feet, and going one side of that would not cause much difference. I am prepared to make a compromise with the Government, as they know lamina most yielding mood. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the provision that the "Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway" for an extension beyond twelve months is altered to "shall require." I do not like to leave these things to doubt, and it is really a serious matter blocking up the highways.

Sir E. CORNWALL

I hope the Solicitor-General will not accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet, who really seems to be as astute in his yielding as in his unyielding mood. The works erected may have altered the whole character of the neighbourhood, and it may be better to have the road in quite a different direction.

Sir F. BANBURY

The Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway in substitution for one closed, which would enable people to get from point A to point B. That is what I want.

Sir E. CORNWALL

That is a question of interpretation of words.

Sir G.CAVE

We cannot take "shall" for "may." There are some highways which are unnecessary. I know many cases where a highway has been closed as unnecessary. In such a case it would be quite absurd to require the Commission to substitute another highway. It may be that the shortest way has been closed under the Defence of the Realm Act, but there may be another way, a little longer, in existence now, which is quite sufficient for the purpose. In a case like that it would be absurd to require the substitution. Therefore, I think the words in the Clause are quite sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "highway" ["public highway has been closed"], to insert the words "or right of way."

Sir G. CAVE

This Amendment is not necessary. "Highway" covers public rights of way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WHITE

I beg to move, after the word "may" ["may be kept closed"], to insert the words "with the consent of the local and road authority for the district in which such railway or tramway is laid."

I put this Amendment down at the desire of the Corporation of Glasgow. The reason for it is that they agreed with the Government to lay out a light railway in one of the public streets, and they made it a condition that, when the railway was no longer required, the rails should be removed and the street restored to its previous condition, to the satisfaction of the Master of Works. That condition was accepted by the Director of Munitions in Scotland, and it was embodied in an agreement. The corporation have been advised that it might be readily contended that this Bill would override that agreement. They want their agreement to be preserved, and it is to preserve that agreement that I move this Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON

I am glad to give my hon. Friend the assurance he wants. I believe it relates to an agreement with the Munitions Department. We have no desire that this Bill should override any of our agreements. They will, of course, be honourably abided by.

Mr. WHITE

The assurance of the hon. Gentleman will, I believe, satisfy the Corporation of Glasgow, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), in the same Sub-Section, to leave out the words "by virtue of this Section" ["but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration"].

I apologise to the Solicitor-General. I have already told him I do not know what the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment is, and, now I have looked at it, I really do not think there is very much in it. However, I will move it formally to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity for stating the reasons why these words "by virtue of this Section" are in the Bill.

Sir G. CAVE

I recognise the loyalty of my right hon. Friend in moving this Amendment. The Clause contains the words that where a highway has been closed "it may be kept closed after the termination of the present War, but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained." The reason for the words that are in question is that there may be some other reason why a highway should be kept closed. For instance, the Quarter Sessions may have made an order to close a highway. Unless you have these words, this Act would overrule an order of the Quarter Session, and that is not desirable.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Amendment made: In the same Sub-section, after the word "obtained" ["consent of the Commission is obtained"], insert the words "and the Commission before giving such consent shall give to the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway an opportunity of being heard."— [Sir G. Care.]

Colonel GRETTON

I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, at the end, to leave out the words "the Commission determine to be the amount of such loss or damage," and, in place thereof, to insert the words "may be determined under Section S of this Act."

It seems to be contemplated that there will be certain arrangements made for public bodies, and that there may be other persons in the vicinity of the highway which is being closed who will suffer damage because of the closing of the highway, and, therefore, will have a claim to compensation. I move my previous Amendment, because it seemed to me that matters of that kind may quite properly be referred to the Commission. When it comes to assessment of loss or damage, clearly these matters ought to come under the general principle of this Bill before the Court which will decide the compensation and damage under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, and, if necessary, an arbiter under that Act will be appointed to determine the case. The Railway and Canal Commission are a body set up for dealing with railway business. They have nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of land by railways. They deal with cases arising out of the working of railways and canals, and matters of that kind, and it is quite new to invest them with powers for assessing compensation in regard to the acquisition of property. I do not urge upon the consideration of the Government the exact words I have put down. Very probably the Government will be able to devise better words, and possibly a better means of carrying out what I want, but I think the principle of what I am now urging is right and just and in conformity with the general tendency of the Act, and therefore I beg to move.

Sir G. CAVE

I understand the object of my hon. and gallant Friend is to take this matter from the jurisdiction of the Commission and to leave the question of compensation to a jury or other tribunal under the Lands Clauses Acts. I do not think the Amendment would have that effect if carried out, because all it does is to leave out reference to the Commission. Moreover, I do not think it is desirable to do what he proposes, because under this Clause you have to go to the Commission to get their consent before the operation of extending the temporary closing of a highway, and they must consider the whole question. Is it not right that they should there and then fix the amount of compensation for the person injured? Otherwise, you have the same question considered by two tribunals, one after another; first by the Commission before giving their consent, and secondly by the arbiter or jury under the Land Clauses Act, therefore you have two inquiries instead of one. I think it would be better to put the whole matter in the hands of the Commission, including this minor question, and I hope that, after the explanation I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not feel bound to press the Amendment.

Colonel GRETTON

I quite recognise the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. This point is only part of the issue, and I agree that the Commission would have to decide a large part of the case. I think I should explain that I have certain Amendments to Clause 8 which will bring the matter up in connection with the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to press; this matter now; but I wish to safeguard myself by saying that if, when Clause 8 is dealt with, some further Amendment on the lines I suggest are found necessary, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think I have gone behind any question if I put down Amendments on the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not intend to vote against the Clause because, although I do not like it, I understand that the Government have given undertakings which, if they are carried out, will considerably modify my objections to the Clause. My particular objection was the appeal to the Board of Trade, of which I spoke a short time ago, because, although it is quite true that the Board of Trade deal with the Railway and Canal Commission they, of course, do not deal with regulations. What the Commission or the Board of Trade will have to decide is whether or not it is in the public interest that a highway should be used for a railway or level crossing, or whether these should not be allowed. The Commissioners are equally able with the Board of Trade to deal with this matter. It is a very strong order, that after the War highways should be used for the purposes of light railways. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us as to whether or not there is a case of a light railway running down a highway? In the majority of cases I think they run over a level crossing, and so on. I presume there must be very few cases where the railway runs along.

Dr. ADDISON

I think there is a case or two of a light railway running down a highway.

Sir F. BANBURY

In cases where they build a factory and cross a road can they use the road to run a tramway line down? However that may be, I understand that the Government are going seriously to consider the special points raised, and that there is to be a limitation proposed as to the period for which tramways may be carried across level crossings. Under these circumstances I am afraid we shall have a very great deal to do on Report.

Mr. HARDY

I would just like to add a word or two to what my right hon. Friend has said in reference to the Board of Trade. It does seem to me that the arguments strengthen the case in favour of the Commission being the authority rather than the Board of Trade. Take the words that the Minister of Munitions has added. It is clear that the Commission is very much more able to judge on these questions than the Board of Trade, for they do not at all lie in the purview of the Board of Trade. So far as they are concerned the Commission would certainly be as good an authority as the Board of Trade. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman urged that the Commissioners should be given further power in respect to the various matters mentioned. Altogether, in view of the fact that the Commission is also the Railway and Canal Commission, it does appear to me to be better to have one authority; not to bring the Board of Trade into this particular matter, but to leave the Commission to deal with it.

Mr. HORNE

Referring to the case mentioned of a factory having been built across a highway, can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the two dead-ends of the highway outside the factory limits will revert? Will the owners of the land adjoining claim the soil or will the local authority remain in possession?

Dr. ADDISON

The alternative highway will connect the severed highway. As regards the other point raised by the hon. and learned Member as to the Board of Trade, it is desirable to transfer the power of the Board of Trade to a Commission which shall be set up for the other purposes of this Bill.

Mr. DENNISS

In respect to the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Horne), the ordinary law in relation to highways is that where both ends of the highway are stopped up the land over which the highway runs reverts to the joint owner, or to one of them.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.