CLAUSE 19.—{Power to extinguish highways over land acquired for purposes of this Part.) (Hansard, 5 October 1944)

§ Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)
I beg to move, in page 24, line 41, after "Act," to insert: on application being made to him by such an authority.

§ The Temporary Chairman
Perhaps it will be convenient to take this and the next Amendment together—In page 24, line 43, at end, insert: an Order made under this Sub-section may contain such consequential, incidental and supplemental provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Order.

§ Sir J. Lamb
This Clause gives power to extinguish highways over land acquired by the local authority. I believe I am speaking for all highway authorities when I say that we are opposed to the Minister having what is looked upon by these authorities as a roving commission, with regard to extinguishing highways. The closing of highways now is the duty of the local authority, and they do not see any reason why they should not continue to perform it. The local authorities are responsible for the requirements of the neighbourhood with regard to roads in their area, and plan construction of roads where required and not only for a particular area which is being planned. They are the authorities for supplying the necessities of the adjoining areas, because you cannot make roads in one area, without having regard for the needs of other areas around. They must also have full regard to traffic, and the type of traffic, which roads, when made, are likely to carry, or, if in existence, do carry. That being so, the first Amendment provides that that duty should remain with them, and that they should make application to the Minister. As regards the second Amendment, I admit that it is obviously desirable that the Minister should have power to make the order applied for by the local authority, and that he should have some details as to the administration and other items which may arise when he is considering the Order.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
In reply to my hon. Friend, I think the Committee, on reflection, will agree that it is necessary for the Minister to have the power of extinguishing even if he very seldom uses it, and not to have that power dependent entirely upon some local body, which might not see the whole picture. I propose, in principle but not in words, to accept my hon. Friend's second Amendment, and I think he ought to be content with that, because it will mean that all objections of local authorities will be properly heard.

§ Sir J. Lamb
In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend will give us the principle underlying the argument which I put in my speech, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I beg to move, in page 24, line 45, after "section," to insert: and specifying the time within which and the manner in which objections to the proposal may be made. It is always desirable to let people know not only what their rights are, but how they should exercise them.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 25, line 1, after "requisite," to insert: and shall serve a like notice—

(a) on the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated, except where that authority applied for the making of the order, and

(b) on any authority being the highway authority as respects tie right of way proposed to be extinguished, except where that authority applied for the making of the order."

I have moved the Amendment with the object of seeing that notice is given to the right authority. It may not always be the county council with whom the Minister may be dealing. It may be the rural district council, and we think that the county council, being the highway authority, and not the rural district council should have the notice.

§ Mr. Morrison
I think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend improves the Bill and I propose to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Morrison
I beg to move, in page 25, line 1, to leave out from "and," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert: the provisions of the Schedule (Procedure for dealing with objections) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the proposal if any objection thereto is duly made. This is consequential.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 25, line 20, to leave out from "shall," to end of line 21, and to insert "not be exercisable."
1265 This Sub-section deals with the powers of the Postmaster-General where an order is made for a road to be closed on which there might be property belonging to the Postmaster-General consisting of telegraph poles and wires. This Department Seems to have the best of it both ways. An order could be made for the Postmaster-General to remove the poles and wires from a road and he would be paid for their removal, and he might also be required to erect new telegraph poles and wires on the new road and he would be paid for that also. It looks like a case of a penny with two heads, because the Postmaster-General wins both ways. There is nothing mentioned about salvage. What is to happen to the materials? This is a matter which should be considered and the local authority should have the advantage of any salvage.

§ Sir H. Williams
I am going to support my hon. Friend on this Amendment. This is a real example of vested interests. This is the Crown in the shape of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who at the moment is missing from the Chamber, and all his successors. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning can do all sorts of things, and then the Government come along and say that this will not apply to the Crown. It really is monstrous that the Crown should be put outside the law. Now that the Crown is a trader carrying on business in the ordinary way, why should there be these exemptions? Why should it not be placed in the same position as everybody else when acting as private trader? Here is a man who sells postage stamps, gives wrong numbers on the telephone and fails to deliver our telegrams. Owing to some monstrous judgment many years ago a telephone line is in the same category as a telegraph line, and that is the reason why no working man can afford to pay for the telephone. These monopolies want to be exempt from town and country planning. It is not good enough. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend has got all the lawyers here. They are apparently so frightened about the Amendment.

§ Captain Strickland (Coventry)
Would it be possible for the Minister, when he removes telegraph posts erected on existing roads and replaces the system some- 1266 where else, to take precautions not to have the posts erected on public rights of way? They constitute a danger and inconvenience to pedestrians.

§ Mr. H. Strauss
Conversations are taking place between the representatives of local authorities concerned and the General Post Office, and that will be the best way of dealing with this matter. I can give an assurance that the matter will be further considered before the Report stage. I believe that it will content those who are undertaking these negotiations to have the right to raise the matter supposing that it has not been satisfactorily settled. I ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to withdraw the Amendment and not to move the next Amendment on the Paper in his name—In page 25, line 22, leave out from "of," to "the," in line 27.

§ Captain Strickland
Can my hon. Friend make a statement with regard to trying to do away with telegraph poles altogether by putting the system underground?

§ Mr. Strauss
I would rather not say anything about that at short notice.

§ Earl Winterton
Presumably the Department will have regard to the aesthetic nature of the case. It would be undesirable in any replanning that the Post Office should have power to erect telegraph poles regardless of the landscape.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
I can assure my Noble Friend that the aesthetic aspect of the matter will be well borne in mind.

§ Sir J. Lamb
On the assurance that has been given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, and to say that I do not propose to move my second Amendment.