HC Deb 29 July 1935 vol 304 cc2392-401

8.3 p.m.

Brigadier-General BROWN

I beg to move, in page 14, line 13, after "district," to insert: or of any person interested in any land to which restrictions under section one or section two of this Act are in force. When this question was raised in Committee the Minister said he recognised that there was a point in the argument put forward and that, if we could find a suitable form of words, he would be glad to try to meet that point. It is in the endeavour to find such a form of words that we have put down this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that where any person has obtained some exemption, protection or the like in the terms of an existing Act or by an agreement with a local authority under an existing Act, such person shall have an opportunity under Clause 12 of this Bill of asking the Minister to make an order compelling the highway authority to implement such bargain or agreement. There are many cases in which arrangements of the kind indicated have been made and while, as the Minister said, it would create difficulties if every individual were to have the right of asking for an inquiry into matters of this kind, I think a little more ought to be done to see that such agreements or bargains are not interfered with by the present Measure.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

I beg to second the Amendment.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

My hon. and gallant Friend will recall that this Clause is in the Bill as a result of suggestions made in the Committee. It empowers the Minister, on the application of the highway authority, to lift any restrictions which have been unnecessarily applied. The proper authority to make the application is the highway authority but the Government agreed to insert the words "or the council of any county district." Those are the accredited representative bodies with the right to speak upon the subject. It would be an imposition upon the administration if "any person" could make such an application and such a provision is not necessary if the highway authority is doing its proper business. I appreciate that my hon. and gallant Friend's purpose is that any previous agreements made with the highway authority should be honoured. That is a purpose which he has consistently advocated at various stages of the proceedings on the Bill. I am compelled to say, however, that the words of the Amendment would not secure the honouring of an agreement if the highway authority chose to violate that agreement. I can only hope that highway authorities in this country who have entered into agreements with landlords, whereby they have taken the land as a free gift, will carry out any obligations which they have reciprocally undertaken, to make service roads or anything of that kind. I am, however, satisfied that if an agreement were entered into for a consideration there would be a recourse to the law courts, if it was a proper, technical agreement. In any event I think, in the first place, the highway authorities are honourable and will not violate such agreements and, in the second place, I cannot see how these words, of themselves, would ensure the purpose which my hon. and gallant Friend so rightly has in view.

8.8 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB

I agree that the words of the Amendment would not, perhaps, achieve that protection for which some of us hoped. This is a question of concessions made by landlords to local authorities to facilitate the improvement of roads. In some counties, including my own, considerable concessions of this kind have been made particularly in regard to the improvement of corners and dangerous places on roads. It has not been thought necessary in every case to put the agreements arrived at into the form of the legal documents. In many cases there has been a "gentleman's agreement" or understanding between the authority and the landlord that certain things should be done and all we want is some assurance that the obligation, which may be only a moral one, should be carried out. We want to know whether there is any appeal to the Minister or anybody else by the individual in those circumstances.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

On a point of Order. I had a new Clause on the Order Paper—(Preservation of existing protection conferred by local Acts)—which, it was pointed out to me, would more properly be moved in the form of an Amendment to this Clause. I have handed in an Amendment accordingly, and I wish to know whether it is intended to call that Amendment or not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers has not yet been reached.

Brigadier-General BROWN

In view of the Minister's reply I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, at the end, to insert: Provided that where by any local Act powers are conferred on a highway authority or provisions are enacted similar to the powers and provisions conferred or enacted by Section one (Power to adopt standard widths for roads), Section two (Restriction of building development along frontages of certain roads), and Section thirteen (Power to acquire land for road purposes), of this Act or any of those Sections, and that local Act contains provisions for the protection of any authorities, companies, or persons, those protective provisions shall apply in relation to—

  1. (a) the exercise by that highway authority within the area to which the local Act applies of the powers conferred on the highway authority by; or
  2. (b) the operation of the provisions of
the said Sections of this Act or any of them in like manner as they apply to the exercise of the powers of the highway authority under, or the operation of the provisions of, the local Act. The reason why I asked whether it was intended to call this Amendment or not was because it relates to a subject analogous to that which we have just been discussing, I put down a similar Amendment in Committee but, unfortunately, the Chairman did not see his way to call it. On that occasion I, in common with other hon. Members, had been asked to put down such an Amendment by the Grand Union Canal Company, the Lea Conservancy Board and the Port of London Authority. Two or three local Acts recently passed give certain protection to statutory undertakers and others in respect of matters similar to those which we are now considering. Powers as regards prevention of ribbon development and standard widths of roads were included in the Essex Counts Council measure and the Middlesex County Council measure, both of which are now law, and also the Hertfordshire County Council Bill, which has yet to receive the Royal Assent. The three important bodies I have mentioned are given considerable protection in those local measures, and it is in order to perpetuate that protection in this Bill that I move the Amendment.

The Minister refused an analogous Amendment in Committee on the ground that Parliament was, on this occasion, legislating for the whole nation, and that it was not fair to place certain highway authorities who were operating under local Acts in a worse position than other similar authorities. He argued that if we were giving wide powers to highway authorities we must extend those powers to all highway authorities and not exclude some authorities who had slightly restricted powers under local Acts. The right hon. Gentleman also said on that occasion that those local authorities would, no doubt, honour their obligations in respect of these three important boards and others concerned. I have no doubt that they will, but if that is the case, if they do honour their obligations, clearly they will be in a worse position anyhow; on the other hand, in the unlikely event of their wishing to evade the obligations, obviously a protection such as I suggest is necessary.

The Minister may say that there is no adequate precedent for giving such protection, but if he will look at the Land Drainage Act, 1930, he will see that Section 66 gives protection in words very similar to those which I am proposing. I could instance all the cases in respect of which the Port of London Authority and the other boards I have mentioned have obtained protection in these local Acts, but I do not want to weary the House. I will simply say that in the case of the Essex Bill, the Port of London Authority has secured complete exemption for all land held for the purposes of their undertaking. I sincerely hope the Minister will consider very carefully whether he cannot grant this concession. He may say that there is already sufficient protection under Clause 12 as it stands, but the Clause merely says that if a highway authority applies for exemption, the Minister can grant it, but in addition to that, if the highway authority wishes to take back by resolution what it has applied for, it can do so. Therefore, it seems to me there is practically no protection given for a statutory undertaking in Clause 12.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I beg to second the Amendment.

I shall be brief, although I have been supplied by the various institutions to which the hon. Member referred with enough information to occupy the House with a long speech. The question at issue is simple. A local authority in a past Session has promoted a Bill, which has gone through the normal procedure; the Second Reading has probably been unopposed, but opposed upstairs by various interests; these interests have been satisfied; and these very judicial bodies of our fellow Members the Select Committees upstairs which consider private Bills, have been satisfied that a public utility or a private interest is entitled to certain protection under the provisions of a local Act. One of the cases sent to me refers to certain protection which was obtained by, I think, the Thames Land Company in the case of the Essex County Council Bill, and there are other cases which have been mentioned, of the Port of London Authority and the Dock and Canal Association, from whom I have received communications. Their argument is that if by a general Act the House withdraws a protection which the subject secures in a local Act, then it is inflicting an injustice, because the House is not in fact conscious of what it is doing. We do not know of the hundreds of cases where protection has been legitimately given by a Committee upstairs, and subsequently approved by the House, to an interest vis a vis a local authority, and when we confer general powers on all local authorities similar to those which individual local authorities have, we should take appropriate steps to make sure that we continue this protection. If, however, all the cases were before us, we should no doubt grant this protection without hesitation.

Under Clause 12 the highway authority can take the initiative, and the Minister has the dispensing power, but as I see it no power is given to the person who may be aggrieved and who may see his rights taken away because a highway authority has not initiated steps and the Minister, therefore, has not acted. Possibly the ideal way would have been to insert words in Clause 12 giving to all these interests the right to initiate proceedings, but possibly this proviso would be better, because it would give them effective protection. If the case is put that the protection which these people obtained under past local Acts is a protection to which they are no longer entitled, the way to take it away is for the local authority in due course to promote another private Bill, or to put it in as part of any private Bill that they may be promoting, and once again the interests affected will be entitled to go upstairs, and, if they are turned down, they will have been turned down after a fair hearing. But surely it is wrong by a general Act, without this House intending it, to take away from people rights which they have established, very often at great expense, before an Opposed Bill Committee upstairs.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. LEVY

I took part in the discussion on the Essex County Council Bill and on the Middlesex County Council Bill, whereby an arrangement was come to between these undertakers and those councils to get certain concessions and privileges, and it was understood at the time that the arrangement would be permanent. I do not think it was ever anticipated by any of the parties concerned that powers would be conferred in the Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill that would override the arrangement come to. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give consideration to this Amendment. I am not suggesting that the county councils concerned would go back on any arrangement they had made, but county councils come and go, or rather their constitution alters, and it would give those bodies an opportunity to take advantage of the powers conferred by this Bill.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

On a point of Order. I am in some little difficulty in this matter. It will be observed that Clause 12 has a marginal heading which indicates what the Clause proposes to do. It deals with the power of the Minister to remove restrictions, but this new proposal deals with the preservation of existing protections conferred by local Acts, and if it is embodied in the Clause without being entered as a new paragraph, I do not see what relation it will bear to the rest of the Clause.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

It is a proviso.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is moved as a proviso, but in any case the marginal note is not part of the Bill.

Mr. JONES

But the Amendment is not moved in the form of a proviso.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. In putting the Question, I started with the words, "Provided that."

8.25 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I did not realise at first which Amendment we were discussing, but now that I know which it is, I quite appreciate the point. It is one with which those who sat on the Committee upstairs have become familiar. It is a more emphatic form of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), who is concerned with the moral responsibility of highway authorities to recognise gifts of land and other concessions made by landowners in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), like my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) is concerned more with bargains that may have been made by companies in the course of the passage of a private Bill. The situation, as I envisage it, is that in the course of the passage of such a Measure some arrangement has been made whereby a powerful corporation has withdrawn its opposition to the Bill in return for being freed from the restrictions which the private Bill proposed to put upon the land abutting on the highway in its district.

I do not see any particular reason why Parliament should recognise—and I think I am sustained here by the highest constitutional authorities—some arrangement made in order to secure the passage of a private Bill into law. Here we are dealing with the general situation. Parliament has come to the conclusion that the present licence to make means of access to the road as and where the individual may think fit shall be terminated in favour of a system of control by the highway authorities under which the individual has to apply for a consent. It may happen that some county councils have in the past shown sufficient foresight to obtain similar powers, but it is difficult to get private legislation through Parliament, and therefore they have obtained what they can, and sacrificed the general principle in its ideal application in order to get the most they can in return for the withdrawal of powerful opposition. I do not see why that in the least should inhibit Parliament from the right to make a general provision that building and access within certain limits are to be denied as a right; I do not see why it should govern Parliament.

We are here legislating for the country as a whole, and in the particular cases which any hon. Friend has in view the legislation has a limited effect, and the consideration was that the private Act should not apply to a particular company or corporation. It has been freed, and it has had its advantage, and the. Bill is still upon the Statute Book. If the highway authorities choose to implement the bargain, as presumably they will if it be a proper and just one, they can do so, and it is for the highway authorities to come to the Minister and say, "This Bill ought not to apply to certain roads." If they do not choose to do that, I do not see how I can be put in the invidious position of determining whether the consideration was a proper one and whether the exception was one that ought to be given in the general interest. I realise that my hon. Friend has this point very much at heart, because it was put repeatedly to me in Committee, principally by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who, I am glad to say, has been silent on this occasion, leaving the advocacy of this case to the formidable speeches made by my hon. Friends. I am not in the least unsympathetic, but the highway authority must be the proper authority to make the application.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

My right hon. Friend indicated that these powerful authorities—the Port of London Authority and others—have blackmailed the Hertfordshire County Council and others into giving them their will during the passage of these Bills. These things are very often done by agreement. Just because an authority is bargained with, it does not mean that it can stop the passage of the Bill unless it is given what it wants. The Minister did not answer my main point. I said that in the 1930 Land Drainage Act there were powers almost exactly similar to these. Protection was given to persons or Authorities who had the benefit of existing protections. I can see no reason why, if that protection were given under the Land Drainage Act, it should not be given under this Bill.

8.32 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB

I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment, because the moral strength of any Bill passed by this House is that it gives equal treatment to different parties.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

This Bill does not.

Sir J. LAMB

It should do. The Amendment asks for unequal treatment as between local authorities and private individuals. A local authority may have acquired certain rights in a private Bill some years ago under different circumstances. On the other hand, an individual may have acquired rights in another way. This Bill would enable a local highway authority to deal with a private individual in one way, but, if the authority wished to do something in regard to the roads which infringed upon powers which had been given to it in some bygone days, they would have to go to the expense of promoting a private Bill to get these powers altered.

Amendment negatived.