HC Deb 16 November 1944 vol 404 cc2189-91

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 26, at end, insert: () Where the Minister is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is or will be needed in consequence of the extinguishment under this Section of a public right of way, the provisions of Section three of this Act shall have effect as they have effect where the Minister is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is needed as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of that Section.

1.59 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment meets a promise given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) when he raised this point at the instance of the County Councils' Association. Its object is to enable the local highway authority to purchase land compulsorily for the construction or improvement of a road which is needed in consequence of the stopping up of a highway under this scheme. It would often be impracticable to stop up a highway which, under the present position, prevents necessary development being carried out unless a new highway is provided to replace it, and it is almost common form that where highways are stopped up under a planning scheme provision ought to be made for a new highway.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 36, at end, insert: so, however, that the said power shall not be exercisable, as respects the whole or any part of the line, after the expiration of a period of three months from the date on which the right of way is extinguished unless before the expiration of that period the Postmaster-General has given notice to the local planning or highway authority of his intention to remove the line or that part thereof, as the case may be; (b) the Postmaster-General may by notice to the local planning or highway authority in that behalf abandon the said line or any part thereof, and shall be deemed, as respects the line or any part thereof, to have abandoned it at the expiration of the said period of three months unless before the expiration of that period he has removed it or given notice of his intention to remove it

2.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I would like to explain the general import of what I may call the Postmaster-General Amendments. I think it would be for the convenience of the House, and then we could probably take this Amendment and the following Amendments together. The effect of the provision of the Bill, as it now stands, is that the Post-master-General retained permanently the right to remove telegraph posts or lines on the stopping up of a highway, under this Clause, and, normally, the Post-master-General was entitled to recover the cost of removal from the local planning authority or the highway authority, as the case may be. The effect of the Amendments is, first, to require the Postmaster-General to decide within three months whether he exercises his power of removal or abandons the line; secondly, if he does not decide to exercise his power of removal the apparatus vests in the highway authority or planning authority and any obligation under the Telegraphs Act ceases to apply. Thirdly, the costs that the Postmaster-General is entitled to recover are limited to those incurred in the provision of a line in substitution for the old line and any necessary connection. I think the House will agree that the Postmaster-General has not come well out of the amended proposals but that they do justice and ensure practicality between the central Government and the local authority.

Mr. Tinker

What difference does it make about the cost? I take it that the Post Office is a public administration and the cost comes from the Exchequer. What is the difference in transferring one cost to the other? It all seems to me to come out of the same purse.

The Solicitor-General

The Post Office is, of course, specially treated in the Budget now. It is a self-supporting Department and one has to cost and budget accurately to see whether it is doing that. Similarly the local authority has to keep its accounts and see how it is functioning. It is so serious a point that in the case of the Postmaster-General v. the Corporation of Liverpool in 1923 the local authority and the Postmaster-General fought it so hard that it went right up to the House of Lords to see who would bear the cost. I shall be pleased to explain it to the hon. Member if I can see him later on.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 34, line 36, agreed to.