HC Deb 29 July 1935 vol 304 cc2422-43
Captain HUDSON

I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, to leave oat "save as aforesaid."

This Amendment, which is followed by an Amendment in line 9, after "under" to insert "Section two of," is a little more complicated than the other. It is a drafting Amendment merely to carry out the original intention of the Bill, which was that under Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1929, the county council should not be forced to contribute towards the expenses of the claiming authority under Section 2. They can contribute if they wish to do so by agreement, but it was never the intention of the Bill that they should be forced to do so. On the other hand, it is intended that should the claiming authority wish to exercise its powers under Clause 13, which is the compulsory purchase Clause for the improvement of a claimed county road, then the county council should be forced to contribute towards the expenses. If we do not make these Amendments the claiming authority would be unable to use that section of the Bill. With these Amendments we are making the position clear.

9.53 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB

I understand that the proposal is now to make the county councils liable to make contributions under the compulsory purchase Clause. In the Bill I think the words are that the local authority must consult with the county council. Is this one of the occasions where after consultation only the county council may be made liable? I wished to put in words that they should have the consent of the county authority. I do not think that the county council should be liable for anything for which they have not given their formal consent but have only been consulted.

9.54 p.m.

Captain HUDSON

This is a question of improvements. In regard to the improvement of a claimed county road the county council are bound to contribute towards the expenses. If there is a dispute between the claiming authority and the county council as to the proportion of the expenses, there is a provision in Section 33 for the proportion to be decided by the Minister. The county council have to contribute a proportion but they have not to defray the whole cost which is what they would have to do if it was a question of the repair of a road.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 9, after "under" insert "section two of".—[Captain Hudson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended on recommittal, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.46 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

The House can congratulate itself on having reached the final stage of the Bill. It is a Bill for which all parties in the House clamoured. It is a lesson to those who occupy ministerial office to recall that when a Bill is asked for by everybody it is a Measure which everybody will desire to amend when it actually appears. Accordingly one found in Committee that its greeting was not as unanimous as one would originally have been led to expect by the pressure which was put upon us from all quarters. While it was not unanimously greeted the atmosphere was, I think, one of good will, and the result has been that suggestions from all quarters have been accepted and have made a decided improvement in the Measure as it was introduced. I will try to recall briefly some of the changes which have occurred. Originally there was no lapse of time between the passing of a resolution and ministerial approval of the resolution laying down the standard width. An opportunity has now been given for an intervening period, during which objections may be lodged by those who are interested. That was a wise concession for the Government to make.

Further, on the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) a register of those having an estate or interest in land on the side of the road has now to be kept by the highway authority, and every one likely to be affected by the restrictions may, if he desires, receive notice. That is a further improvement on the Bill. While originally the Minister was empowered to ask Parliament for widths in excess of 160 feet, that power has been taken from the Bill, as it is thought that 160 feet is about the widest road a modern community can desire, but at the behest of the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut. Colonel Acland-Troyte) a special provision has been made for increasing the widest standard width when an embankment or cutting makes such a precaution necessary.

There is an appeal now in regard to agricultural access under Clause 1, which was not originally in the Bill. I fear that my desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members and grant such an appeal was the cause of the subsequent constitutional discussion in which we were involved, for in adding an amendment to give an appeal on agricultural access, and having been thanked by hon. Members, it was subsequently discovered that what they desired was an appeal not to the Minister but to petty sessions and quarter sessions. I think that the Government have showed the House that it was anxious to meet them in essentials. There is now to be a local public inquiry, a summary of the facts and a reasoned decision by the Minister. The Government felt compelled to regard the working out of the Bill in practice as an administrative matter, and that the highway authorities and the Minister, who were entrusted to make a success of it, should be allowed to determine where access should occur upon a road and where building. The House has sustained us in that point of view by a large majority, partly because of the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe), who in a most persuasive maiden speech laid before the House the results of his actual experience in practising before the courts. I am sure the House was glad that he chose this occasion to intervene upon a subject with which in the course of his professional career he is familiar.

While the House sustained us in keeping the appeal in the hands of the Minister, the Government are not unconscious of the very strong feeling entertained by hon. Members upon this subject. Anyone who listened to the discussions and contrasted them with what is happening in other countries must have been proud of the strong regard for democratic institutions which obtains here. At least I have that feeling myself, and it is worthy of preservation. We were not proposing to tax the subject or put him in gaol on a Ministerial decree; we were merely deciding that the Minister should be able, as the responsible authority, to determine when consent to access or building should be granted. The fact that the Amendment has been inserted requiring the Minister to hold a public inquiry and to give reasons for his decision should give some satisfaction at any rate to my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment, and should be a valuable precedent for other Measures. I think the House ought to bear in mind, in this question, not the emotional aspect of bureaucracy, but the clear division between what is properly judicial and what is properly administrative, for the day would indeed be an unfair one to Ministers if those who are called upon to carry Acts of Parliament into effect were not given the necessary powers to do what Parliament expected of them.

We have made changes in Clause 13 affecting the compulsory purchase of land for 220 yards on either side of a road. This was a Clause upon which there was strong feeling. It was thought to be injudicious to enable a highway authority to acquire land by compulsion in order to protect amenities which they might later be so obscurantist as themselves to destroy. As the Clause stands a highway authority may purchase land with the approval of the Minister for preserving the view from the road, but may not alienate that land without coming back to Parliament. The Clause in its final form will have given satisfaction to the whole House.

Upon compensation we made an adjustment which enables a person claiming compensation in respect of a piece of land which is restricted, to compel the arbitrator to have regard to the effect of the restriction on the whole of his adjoining estate. This made the compensation Clause wider, but did not exceed our original intention when we were drafting the Bill. We were able to im- prove the wording of it, making it clear that the whole of the estate and not only the restricted part should be brought under review, and for that we are largely indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). We accepted an Amendment at the instance of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) on that important Clause of the Bill which enables a local authority to require anybody extending a building or erecting a building to provide means of ingress and egress for setting down or taking up passengers and goods. The Amendment we accepted from him was to make it clear that the Clause would only apply to new buildings, and we accepted a further Amendment from him to make it possible for the builder to provide a garage instead of a drive-in as originally proposed. We are grateful to him for those suggestions upon a subject with which he is familiar.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who was the most persistent but not the least constructive of the critics of this Measure, harassed us in our progress through the Bill until he had made sure that "building" did not include fences, gates, scarecrows, marquee tents, in which he was accustomed to address his constituents, and other structures and erections. It was very difficult to obtain a definition of "building" that satisfactorily fulfilled the purpose we had in view, but owing to the assistance of my hon. Friend a definition was in the end devised and inserted in the Bill. We also accepted an Amendment to make the mining position clear, and to make it plain that an excavation did not include workings which did not pierce the surface of the land. Private gardens were allowed to enjoy their amenities, and fences and gates that might be erected were not considered buildings or ipso facto means of access.

These are the main matters in which the Bill was altered by the Committee, and I think that when I narrate them to the House hon. Members will appreciate that the Committee in its 11½ sittings and in the course of the consideration of its 580 Amendments did not weaken but strengthened the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were inclined to reproach me for the concessiveness which I showed on behalf of the Government. I have con ceded nothing which in my judgment is not an improvement of the Bill. I was ready to listen to arguments from all quarters of the House and to accept suggestions regardless whence they came. I am also a realist, and I know that it is better to be reasonable if you wish to get a Measure through than to be needlessly obstinate. At any rate I tried to have regard to the realities of the situation, and as the result we not only got the Bill through Committee but had it made better in the process.

Having referred to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should like to say candidly and genuinely that although they were in opposition to the Bill it must be recognised that they did nothing to obstruct its passage. On the contrary, they made it possible for us to get the Bill before the Parliamentary Recess, and for that I express my genuine acknowledgment, as I do also for the contribution they made in their brief speeches, which were the only speeches they permitted themselves to make, owing to consideration of the necessity of passing the Measure.

The House will not object to my adding a word of appreciation to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who was a member of the Committee, and his colleagues, who took up a most reasonable and helpful attitude, and who also did not delay the proceedings by unnecessary speeches but, when they did speak, had a sound point of view to contribute to the discussion. These observations will be my concluding words. It now will rest with the highway authorities and with the Ministry of Transport to improve our roadside development in a manner which will not only preserve amenities but will save many lives. The objects which we have in view are common. The responsibilities rest particularly upon the highway authorities. I hope they will appreciate that and administer this Measure as effectively as Parliament would have desired. In thanking the House for the manner in which it has made this Measure what it has now become, I beg to move the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

While appreciating the very kind words of the Minister, I think every party in the House desired, when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, to do everything to get it passed during this Session. We had heard constant complaints from all parties about the extension of what is now known as ribbon building. It was to obviate the possibility of a further extension of such building that the House was desirous that the Bill should get through at the earliest possible moment. At the same time I doubt if many realise that instead of being a Bill for the prevention of ribbon development, it is going a little in the other direction. Although the description "ribbon development" may appeal to the imagination of some people, it is clear that ribbon development, or ribbon building, is something that wants tackling in a more drastic manner than has been done in the Bill. The Minister said that we called his attention to the fact that he was being too generous in his concessions.

The right hon. Gentleman's contention has been on several occasions that he did not accept any Amendment unless it was, in his judgment, improving the Bill. I should like to call his attention to one particular part of the Bill. I think it is the present Clause 14. It is the Clause which the Minister introduced as a new Clause and which aroused opposition at the last meeting of the Committee. When we arrived at the Clause, there were something like 30 Amendments standing against it. The Minister said he thought that a short explanation would save time. He made his short statement, and I am going to make a short statement now. The Minister said that the night previously he had been speaking to one of the people who had the Amendments on the Paper, and he thought that he could see his way clear to accepting the Amendments. When I state that that particular Member of the Committee had no fewer than 20 Amendments down against one Clause, and all were accepted, I think the House will agree that the Minister was rather generous.

I have in the whole of my Parliamentary life known nothing like it. A Minister brings in a new Clause to which there are 30 Amendments, and in order to satisfy or pacify the people he had a talk with them the night before and then agrees to accept the Amendments en bloc. That means either very bad drafting or unusual leniency on the part of the Minister. I do not wish to put it any higher than that, and it is the Minister's own remark on the subject which has drawn that comment from me. I think he has been too lenient to certain interests during the passage of this Bill through its various stages, and that he has not made it possible for the highway authorities to take full advantage of the Measure as it stands. The Bill is supposed to enable the highway authorities to acquire land for the construction and improvement of roads, but I ask the Minister whether he thinks that highway authorities will be able to purchase the land necessary, in view of the shortage of capital and the price which they will have to pay for the land. The Minister may reply that this will be a kind of deferred payment system and that the local authorities will not feel it because it will not be in bulk, but the land will be increasing in value all the time, and the highway authorities will have to pay the increased value.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to purchase or compensation?

Mr. PARKINSON

Of course the land will have to be purchased—

Mr. WILLIAMS

That is at once?

Mr. PARKINSON

Great expense will be imposed on the highway authorities in connection with this matter both in purchase and compensation, and I submit that that will prevent them taking full advantage of any opportunities which are afforded by the Bill. There is another suggestion which the Minister did not accept and which we think he ought to have accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) put down an Amendment on this subject which was not called. The Bill refers to preserving amenities and controlling development in the neighbourhood of roads. The preservation of amenities is a sore point with those of us who come from the industrial areas. In those districts we find accumulations of all kinds along the sides of our roads and our railways. These eyesores are a constant and painful reminder of how industry has been operating at the expense of the amenities of the countryside. I appealed to the Minister in Committee to include in the Bill a provision which would prohibit these accumulations within a reasonable distance of the highway so as to prevent interference with the amenities. The Minister expressed great sympathy but pointed out various difficulties and we got no further. We want to try by every means to preserve the amenities but I fear that the Bill is not going to do all that it set out to do in that respect. There are many eye-sores such as disused collieries, derelict brickworks, partially destroyed mills and old properties of various kinds which might have been dealt with in this Measure.

On the question of jurisdiction raised in Clause 7 and the appeal to the Minister, I am pleased that the decision reached in the Committee has been reversed, because if think it only right that the Minister should have the power which the Bill now confers upon him. It may not be generally known that there is a provision in Clause 14 of the Bill to the effect that nothing in that Clause is to authorise the compulsory acquisition of any right in, under or over any land for the purpose of the construction of a bridge under or over the Manchester Ship Canal. I think that is going too far. The Minister may tell me that a Private Bill can be promoted by a county council or any other authority desiring the right to place a bridge across the Ship Canal, but I think the same right ought to exist in regard to the Manchester Ship Canal as in regard to any other canal or railway line. We must have regard to the length of the canal from Liverpool to Manchester and the fact that it passes through a number of closely associated industrial areas where a tremendous lot of building is in progress. It may be necessary at any time to provide additional bridges and Private Bill legislation takes up a lot of time and costs a lot of money. I think there ought to be power to place bridges across the canal wherever necessary and to buy land for that purpose without Private Bill legislation.

As I say, this is termed a Bill for the restriction of ribbon development, and, while I do not think it will go far in that direction, I believe it will provide a certain amount of road planning. I fear, however, that the cost involved will be too high for the local authorities and in my opinion the Bill entrenches the landowner in his present position. The landowners will secure very high returns for their land, either by purchase or compensation. The cost will fall on the highway authorities and the highway authorities will have to secure the money to meet these charges, not from any wealthy corporation, but from the poor people who have to pay rates. I sincerely hope that the Bill will develop in a wider sense than appears likely at the moment and that it will eventually justify its existence. We said at the beginning that while we criticised the Bill we did not intend to place any obstacle in its way to the Statute Book. We still take that view. We believe that it is a step in the right direction but a very short step.

10.14 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister on having secured the passage through this House of his first important Measure. He has had to get round some awkward corners, but he has now successfully parked this Measure, having nearly exceeded the speed limit in getting it through its various stages. I thank him for the compliment which he paid to me and I think the House will agree that the Committee which dealt with the Bill was very good tempered, largely bacause of the right hon. Gentleman's good temper. There was very little ill-feeling or bitterness and the Bill had a remarkably quick passage through Committee. The Committee sat afternoons and on one occasion four days a week. I think we may have had too great expectations from this Bill. It was introduced as a result of a great popular demand in the Press and in the House of Commons. The national conscience was aroused at what was going on through the length and breadth of the land, and at the depreciation of roads built at public expense, and as a result, at a very late stage in the Session, this Bill was introduced. Some of us would have liked it to take another form, but here it is, for better or for worse, and it will become an Act of Parliament, I hope, before we adjourn for the recess.

I think we are all agreed that time is of the essence of the Bill, that speed is essential. While we have been discussing it, the very evils that the Bill is designed to prevent have been almost daily taking place. I, like other hon. Members of the House, go along these arterial roads and see this terrible disfigurement of the landscape taking place, and the very fact that this Bill has been going through its various stages has accelerated the development of land in this undesirable way. It is well to remember that the Bill is not mandatory but that the working of it depends on the discretion of the local authorities. Where you have a forward, sympathetic local authority, anxious to do its work in this direction, some of these evils will be met; on the other hand, where you have an apathetic local authority, indifferent and, I might add, perhaps without the necessary funds, very little good will be done. But the very publicity given to this problem of ribbon development will, I hope, arouse the national conscience and create a healthy public opinion to stimulate local authorities to do their job. Then we have to rely on the well known advertising qualities of the right hon. Gentleman to broadcast the need and the necessity for applying these powers by the local authorities.

I am glad these duties are not to be centralised. On the whole, I think the balance of advantages is in working through the machinery of local government, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot enforce, he can only persuade, and I hope he will do his best to put the machinery in operation and to persuade the local authorities to make full use of the very limited powers given to them by the Bill. The real question in many parts of the country will be the cost. There are many and onerous provisions for compensation in the Bill, especially in Clause 13, which will put undue burdens, I am afraid, on some parts of the country. I am not sure in this respect that the machinery is ideal. Under Clause 13 compulsion can be used for acquiring land required for road purposes, but when it comes to amenities, in the new Clause introduced by the right hon. Gentleman at the last moment, it depends on the good will of the landowner conceding by agreement the land required for amenities, and I am afraid that this will mean in many cases that it will be too expensive for the local authorities to be able to find the necessary money.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has made any estimate of the probable cost of operating this Bill. I think it would not have been amiss if he had taken the House into his confidence in that respect. What burden is it to put on the local authorities? The right hon. Gentleman must know pretty well the weak spots, those roads which it may be necessary to improve in order to prevent their desecration and worsening under this so-called ribbon development. His Department must have got some figures. I am afraid that that will be the stumbling block. In the meantime, we hope the local authorities will operate the Bill speedily and try to make its Clauses effective, because I believe they will have the nation behind them, and if it is found that they are prevented from carrying out this work because of the heavy cost involved, it will then be up to the Treasury or to the Minister of Transport through the Road Fund to come to their aid.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

As one who spoke the greatest number of words in the Committee upstairs, may I join in the congratulations to the Minister on his handling of this Bill? I do not know whose fault it was, but it was not creditable to the arrangement of business that the Committee should have been asked to consider so near to the end of the Session a Measure so important as this which contained so many controversial matters. The first Amendment that was moved was moved by me, and it was accepted by the Minister. It had the effect of extending Clause 1 to apply not merely to road safety, but to amenities. All those who were connected with me on the Committee did not agree with me about that. Nevertheless, I think the Bill was improved by the Minister accepting that Amendment. I first started to take an interest in this Bill in the Whitsuntide Recess, when I took it home and read it through twice. I came to the conclusion that in its original form it was very dangerous to the liberties of the people, and because of that I drafted a large number of Amendments to which my name was attached, and I co-operated with other Members in drafting further Amendments, to which in all cases my name was not attached.

As a result of our efforts, the Bill is to-day a very different Bill in detail—I do not say in the main principle—from the Bill as originally introduced. I do not think that it is to-day a challenge to the liberties of the people. I want to congratulate the Minister on having added a new noun to the English language—"concessiveness"—which I hope will be added to the new edition of the Oxford Dictionary. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman opposite has misread the Bill so seriously. He was very much afraid that, in connection with compulsory purchase, the fact that payments have not to be made at once would, owing to the fact that land was rising in value, add very much to the cost. So far as there is compulsory purchase under Clause 13, for road improvement purposes payment is made at once. I think that the hon. Gentleman was thinking of Clause 9, where, if consent is not granted and subsequently a person suffers, he can only claim compensation at the time when he can establish the fact that he has suffered an injury, and not at the time when consent is refused. Whether that is a good or a bad provision I do not know, but it will have the effect of relieving the local authority entirely from payment in those cases where restriction is imposed, but where it cannot be established that the restriction has immediately prevented development.

The hon. Gentleman opposite challenged the addition to Clause 14 which provides a safeguard to the Manchester Ship Canal. It happens that I moved that Amendment in the absence of one of my hon. Friends who could not be present and who had been asked to do it by the Manchester Ship Canal Company, the principal shareholder of which is not a private individual, but the City of Manchester Corporation. It seems obvious that in the case of the only ship canal in the serious sense in this country which is under the obligation to make sure that ships can go along it, no bridge ought to be proposed over the canal unless there is sufficient safeguard that the bridge will not be calculated to interfere with the traffic for which the canal was constructed. It seems elementary common sense that in a general Bill to restrict ribbon development we should not introduce something which is a challenge to that very remarkable undertaking in which the city of Manchester invested not only its hopes, but, as I well remember as a boy, because I was born near the Eastham Lock, almost its last penny to carry it to fruition. I cannot understand how anybody would wish to introduce an element of peril to that very remarkable and now, I am glad to say, relatively prosperous engineering undertaking.

As one who has been rather a burden to the Minister during the last few weeks, I would like to thank him for his uniform good temper and courtesy, and not only him but the Parliamentary Secretary, the Solicitor-General, and also the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was having his baptism of fire, it being his first experience, I think, of taking part in the conduct of a controversial Bill. We were also very much helped by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), who happened to be our Chairman; if I may say so, one of the very admirable chairmen evolved under the new system introduced this Session.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT

I gather that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not only pleased with himself, but is now pleased with the Bill, and I am almost tempted to be so discourteous as to say that that convinces me that the Bill is not a very good one from our point of view.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

You have not read it.

Mr. WILMOT

I think the hon. Member now adds direct rudeness to discourtesy, if I may say so. Since I sat on the Committee on this Bill throughout its consideration he might give me the credit of at least having read it.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Did the hon. Member say he sat throughout?

Mr. WILMOT

I sat throughout.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Thank you.

Mr. WILMOT

I might also say that its sittings would not have been so numerous or so long if it had not been for the hon. Member, However, perhaps we may now get down to the substance of the Bill. The Minister was graceful enough to acknowledge the fact that we on this side of the House had done our utmost to facilitate the passage of the Bill into law, We did that not because we thought it was a good Bill, but because we hoped that it might at any rate do something, however little, to arrest an evil which is so obvious and so unpleasant and in fact, so dangerous that any delay in doing something about it is to be deplored. Personally, I am disappointed in this Bill. It has been talked about for years, but the evil has gone on not only unchecked but accelerated by the preliminary talk and the unconscionable delay between the King's Speech and the introduction of the Bill, with the result that vast stretches of the countryside are now ruined for ever.

It is a very disappointing Bill, and those of us who are proud and passionately attached to the countryside—as most Englishmen are—are very much disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity of really doing something to remedy that evil. The chief defect of the Bill is the absence of effectiveness. It has looked at this problem purely as a traffic problem. The problem has its traffic aspects, but it is not a traffic problem. The problem is the unregulated exploitation of the countryside for private profit. That is the real problem, and the traffic side of it is merely one of its many sides. This Bill does something to arrest the dangers which are caused on the highway by the access of houses or side roads to arterial roads, but it has not done anything to arrest ribbon development. All it has done is to push the ribbon slightly further back, to increase the space between the two ribbons. From the public amenity point of view nothing is gained by having a string of bungalows 100 yards back from the road. You simply have exactly the same situation as existed before the Bill was thought of, except that you have reduced the dangers of unlimited access to the highway. So far as disfiguration of the countryside is concerned, the Bill does nothing.

We do not claim any monopoly of feelings of loathing and distress when we see those things taking place, and men of every party must be bitterly disappointed that the Government have missed the opportunity. On the main highway the Bill merely pushes the ribbon farther back. It does something less; we are worse off than if it had never been introduced. It does not apply to unclassified roads. Therefore the ribbon development speculator will be driven off the main highway, to an extent, to carry out his nefarious operations on the side roads and lanes of our beautiful countryside. We can see that happening to-day within 30 miles of this House. Country lanes are being "developed," as it is called, in this way.

The feeling that the Bill is entirely inadequate is general among people who are interested in this matter. The "Times" newspaper summarised this point of view when it was talking about the Bill so far away as 11th April this year. It said that it could no longer be thought, as might have been done some time before, that the solution would be found in conferring upon all the highway authorities powers such as had been secured by several of them by means of special Acts, for instance by the Surrey County Council. The "Times" went on to say: The first requirement of an effective Measure must surely be that it should cover all roads, except those that are used as private roads and on private estates. That is a most essential point. But the Bill does not apply its restrictions to all roads. It leaves the matter to the local authorities, at their own expense and by special resolution, to apply the provisions of Clause 2 to all the roads except the classified roads. It is obvious that the poorer and less progressive local authorities and, unfortunately, those, and there are many of them, which are dominated by building interests—it is quite common for the local jerry-builder to become a member of the local authority—will not move a finger to operate the Bill. We shall be worse off than before, for not only have we the jerry-builder building on our main highways, but we have now forced him to the side roads which are not covered by the Bill.

There is one other point. Clause 3 exempts works already in progress. I regard this as the most dangerous Clause of all. By that Clause any work which is in progress is exempted from the provisions of the Measure. In so far as unclassified roads are concerned, work is regarded as in progress until the approval of the Minister is given to the special resolution of the local authority applying the Act to this or that unclassified road. It means that if the jerry-builder gets busy now and runs down his foundations, or what passes for foundations in these erections, along a strip of land to-morrow morning—he can cover vast areas in that way—that is work in progress, and at no time will it be possible under the Bill to stop that line of houses from being completed. You have, in fact, put a premium upon ribbon development; you are asking for an acceleration of the evil; for not only have you now confined him to the byroads, but you have told him, "Hurry up and get on with it; make sure you get something done before the local authority passes a resolution applying the Act to that particular road." Clause 3 says to him, "If you will only he as quick as possible, and cover as much of the country as you can in the time, we will see to it that, when the authority does act, its action is restricted so that it cannot interfere with anything which you have done." It would have been reasonable, fair and just for this Clause to have been so drawn as to require the builder of works in progress to show that they were bonâ fide works in progress, and not attempts to evade the spirit of the Act by putting down a track of foundations in order to get the protection of the saving Clause.

The general criticism of the Bill is that it does not do what one would infer from its Title. It does not prevent ribbon development; it does not restrict ribbon development; it merely removes the highway danger which ribbon development has caused, and it leaves absolutely untouched the main evil which gave rise to the demand for the Bill. I am not only disappointed, but am sincerely surprised, that a Government which is a Conservative Government, which professes to have some regard for the conservation of the beauties of this country, a Government which, however unjustified it may be in doing so, calls itself a National Government and which has the present Prime Minister at its head—for no one has expressed in more effective terms what we all feel about the English countryside—should have so mishandled this question. One can only be forced regretfully to the conclusion that the Government, when they came to grips with this problem, were more concerned to safeguard the rights of private property, the rights, that is to say, of private persons to make a profit out of the spoliation of what is really the birthright of the community, than they were to take effective measures to stop the development and growth of this evil. It is particularly surprising that the Prime Minister should have lent himself to this thing. I have to thank him, not only for many fine speeches on the subject, but for the introduction to the works of Mary Webb, from which I have gathered much joy and appreciation of his particular part of the country. Time is running against us on this question. Those who know the South Downs, the Cotswold Hills, or any other unspoiled tract of England, know very well that this rash is creeping over it, and every week sees it intensified and developed still further. I am convinced, as everyone is who has studied the Bill and its effects, that the effect on the real rural beauties of England will be to accentuate rather than to remove the evil.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. MABANE

I hope I may be permitted, as one closely associated with the Minister, and as a Liberal supporter of the Government, to join in the congratulations on the manner in which he has conducted the Bill through the Committee and the House. In Committee he has been yielding when yielding would not endanger the Bill and he has been stubborn when failure to resist would damage it. I feel that it is somewhat ungracious that hon. Members opposite have not congratulated him also, for so often has he been inclined to resist the views of those who normally support him in order to accept the point of view that has been taken by hon. Members opposite. I feel, if I may use two new nouns, one coined by the Minister himself and the other by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), that the right hon. Gentleman's "concessiveness" has not resulted in the "worsenment" of the Bill.

I want to refer to Clauses 16 and 17. I feel that the House ought to appreciate that these Clauses will probably result in the traffic congestion in large cities being substantially eased. They have little to do with ribbon development but they have a lot to do with traffic. I should like particularly to thank the Minister for the manner in which he has dealt with Clause 17. It was represented to him that, as originally drafted, it would probably be difficult to work, and those who would be charged with the task of making it work pointed out to him that, if certain alterations were made, it would be easier for them. They did not wish in the least to diminish the effect of the Clauses but they proposed certain alterations which, if accepted, would in their opinion result in traffic congestion in large cities being very substantially eased. I am glad to say that the Minister has accepted those suggestions and now Clause 17 is in such a form that in large cities the effect that he desires will in my view be substantially achieved.

I should like to refer again to the somewhat ungracious speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). He objects, for some obscure reason, to people living along the side of country lanes. I pointed out in Committee that I could conceive no better place to live in than a country lane. He apparently desires that the proletariat, for whom he affects so speak, should be perpetually confined to the slums of the large cities. I think he ought to reconsider his views on that topic. The Bill will be a far better one than he has suggested and we part with it with pleasure and with congratulations to the Minister and to his Parliamentary Secretary.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. LEVY

I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). I think I have heard it before in Committee, and it appears to me to be the only speech that he can make on this Bill. He chided the Minister. He said he was at the Committee's sittings throughout.

Mr. WILMOT

No. I did not say that.

Mr. LEVY

I am in the recollection of the House. The hon. Member definitely said that he was at the Committee meetings throughout their sittings.

Mr. WILMOT

I said I was a Member of the Committee.

Mr. LEVY

The Committee sat on nine days. The hon. Member was there for only four. There were 15 divisions.

Mr. SPEAKER

There is nothing about that in the Bill.

Mr. LEVY

That is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member is criticising the Bill and what took place with regard to it. As one who was there all the time, may I say that my right hon. Friend listened with very great courtesy to all the Amendments that were tabled? He met the objections with the utmost fairness. The Bill which has now emerged from that Committeee on to the Floor of the House is a good Bill, of which my right hon. Friend will have cause to be proud in the future. I want to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said with regard to the courtesy not only of my right hon. Friend, but of all Members of the Front Bench who were associated with him, and to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) who acted with grace and courtesy towards Members of the Committee as Chairman. I am sure that when this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book all those who took part in the discussions will feel that they will have added to the legislation of this country something worthy of the National Government.

10.47 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB

The Minister has received a considerable amount of congratulation, and if I do not add to that congratulation I know that he will appreciate that it is not because I do not wish to do so, but because I do not wish to take up the time of the House. There is one point, which, though not in the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to mention. It is because it is not in the Bill that I wish to say that I think that the Bill is not as good as it really ought to have been.

Mr. SPEAKER

We cannot deal with that matter on the Third Reading.

Sir J. LAMB

May I put it in this way? In Committee I raised a point which was embodied in an Amendment which was not called.

Mr. SPEAKER

I cannot allow the hon. Member to raise the point.

Sir J. LAMB

Am I entitled, on a point of Order, to raise a point which the Minister said he would consider before the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER

Not now.

Sir J. LAMB

I am afraid that I shall be out of order in what I wish to say.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

As one who perhaps put more Amendments down in respect of the Bill on the Committee stage than any other Member except certainly my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), it would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have dealt with the Bill on Committee and since. They have both been extremely amenable. They have given every consideration to the various Amendments we put down, instead of trying in any way to ride roughshod over us. Whatever we have brought forward they have always given, as is described in the Bill, a complete right of access. There has been provided by the efforts of my right hon. Friend a pastime for our juvenile population in respect of the red and green lights in the streets. I believe that what happens is that several boys and girls go to where the lights are and jump on the ribbon thing in order that the red lights may go on and prevent the traffic from passing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that those of us who put down numbers of Amendments to the Bill were not actuated by the same ideas or motives as those children.

We really had very serious misgivings as to the effect of the Bill upon the small man as well as upon the large landowner and the undertakers of the big public utility companies in the country. I think that my right hon. Friend has met most of the Amendments put down to the Bill. He certainly met what I have considered the gravest objection from the very beginning, and that was the right of local authorities under what was Clause 10 and is now Clause 13 to buy compulsorily land up to 220 yards each side of the road. That, if it had not been modified, would have been a very wide and dangerous power, which might have been misused by local authorities. But the difficulty has been met, and I therefore hope that this Bill will do what we all hope it will, that is, to prevent accidents on the roads and also to stop this terrible ribbon development which is so defacing our countryside.

10.51 p.m.

Captain HUDSON

In the very few minutes in which I shall address the House I want to take up two points which were made by the Opposition, and also to acknowledge the bouquets which were presented to my right hon. Friend and myself. First of all, as regards what the Opposition said. They made a couple of rather gloomy speeches. The first point to which I would reply is that made by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) when he inferred that the Government in allowing the Bill to be amended to the form in which it is now were deliberately pandering to people who liked to build ribbon houses along the side of the road, which he called jerrybuilt and unsuitable houses. I think the House will realise that if the Government were trying to do anything of the kind it would not have brought in a Bill at all. It certainly did not bring in a Bill of this kind and take up the time of Parliament for any such motive as that.

The other point is that the Bill would merely drive ribbon building further back. I believe that the powers we have taken as regards access will be such that instead of houses being built parallel to the road beyond the 220 feet, realising that they cannot have access to all these houses, they will build at right angles and thereby we shall get the group development which we want to see and thus ribbon development will be avoided. As the Minister has said, the machinery of this Bill remains intact, but it has been improved by the House and improved in order to see that no injustice shall be done to any individual as a result of the Bill. We believe that this Bill as now drafted will be able to deal effectively with certain admitted evils. In moulding this Bill to its present form we have seen the work of the House of Commons at its best. As my right hon. Friend has said, we are extremely grateful for the help we have received from all sides of the House, and we now ask for the Third Reading to be given to us in order that we may bring the Bill's provisions into effect at the earliest possible moment.