Clause 1.—(AUTHORISED WORKS.) (Hansard, 28 February 1949)

§ The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after "shall" to insert: without the consent of the Minister of Transport. Subsection (4), as drafted, provides that there should be no lateral deviation in the line of the tramways which would leave less space than 9 ft. 6 ins. between the outer rail of the tramway and the outer edge of the footpath. The Amendment, in the event of any dispute between the tramway authority and the owners or occupiers, enables the Minister of Transport to give his consent to any further deviation.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)
I am a little astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's observations in moving this Amendment. Surely, the users of the road are also interested if the space between the tram rail and the kerb is reduced to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. As I understand it, under the subsection as it will now be amended, the right hon. Gentleman cannot stop the tram rail being put right alongside the kerb unless one-third of the owners or one-third of the occupiers of the premises abutting on the place where such less space shall intervene by writing within three weeks express their objection. Would it not be much better for the right hon. Gentleman to state that that space should always be left unless he gave his consent to it being reduced. That would seem to me to be eminently desirable, not only in the interests of the owners and occupiers, but in the interests of all those driving vehicles along the road.
As I understand the subsection, his only right of objection comes when the owners or occupiers have first objected. I think that it is unfortunate that he should not have the right of saying that these tram lines shall not be deviated without his consent to restrict the passage for ordinary vehicles to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. The Amendment does not seem to provide for that at all. I had hoped that that was the intention.

§ Mr. Barnes
Yes; the Amendment is in line with the model Clauses that deal with this matter.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
That may well be so, but I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether this subsection, as amended, will enable him, without any protest being made by owners or occupiers, to say that not less than 9 ft. 6 ins. shall be allowed and the space shall not be reduced below 9 ft. 6 ins. without the Minister's consent. The subsection does not say that. The subsection limits the right hon. Gentleman's powers to occasions when owners or occupiers have made their protest within three weeks, and if less than one-third of the owners or less than one-third of the occupiers protest within three weeks, the right hon. Gentleman has no power to say, "You must not move your tram line nearer to the kerb than 9 ft. 6 ins."

§ Mr. Barnes
The Amendment is designed to give the Minister of Transport power to override those objections if necessary, if he considers the circumstances warrant it. In this case the special circumstances are the necessary alteration of the tramways to provide the facilities for the exhibition. The Amendment gives the Minister of Transport powers to override such objections.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I am not quite sure whether I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the effect of this Amendment, but that interruption does not answer the point I was putting to him. I have put it before, but I will try to put it more clearly, because he obviously has not followed it. Suppose there are no objections from owners or occupiers; suppose, none the less, that in the interests of traffic it is undesirable that there should be a deviation restricting the space to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. This Clause, even as amended, gives the right hon. Gentleman no power of saying: "You must not do that"—not in the interests of the owners and occupiers, but in the interests of those using the roads. I should have thought that he, as Minister of Transport, would have wanted power to say that. That is the point I am putting. It may be quite right—I would not say it was not—that he should have power, after careful consideration of the views of the owners and occupiers, to overrule their objections. But that is not the point I 69 raise on this Amendment. The point I raise is the important question: has the Minister power to overrule those who wish to restrict the space between the tram rail and the kerb to less than 9 ft. 6 ins.? I hope I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be able to answer that innocent little question.

§ Mr. Barnes
I understand that that power is clearly defined in the Clause as amended. However, I give the hon. and learned Member the undertaking that if there should be any further doubt—which I understand is cleared up by this Amendment—there will be an opportunity of rectifying the matter in another place. At the moment I feel that this is adequately provided for.

§ Mr. Bramall (Bexley)
I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), because it does seem that the right hon. Gentleman is giving himself powers only one way. With the Clause as amended there will be two qualifications of the powers of the authority. The first qualification is that they may not do something if the owners and occupiers object. Assuming that there is no objection, there seems to be no limitation at all to the powers of the authority. It appears that the qualification which the right hon. Gentleman is putting in here comes into force only if the second part of the subsection is operative; that is to say, if the owners and occupiers object.
But surely, as the Minister has said, there is another interested party: namely, the users of the road, whose interests are protected by the right hon. Gentleman. Yet there is no provision in the Clause, as it stands, for anyone representing the users of the road to object to this procedure. Unless somebody does object to the procedure this subsection is not operative, because the whole subsection depends, as it stands, on the second part, which in turn is dependent on an objection being lodged; and if no objection is lodged the subsection does not come into effect at all, and if the subsection does not come into effect the Minister has no ability to override the objection.
My right hon. Friend requires a weapon in each hand: in the interests of road users, he needs ability to override the 70 tramway authority if the tramway authority is doing something wrong; on the other hand, he needs ability to override the objectors if they are objecting frivolously or unnecessarily, or if he is convinced that the force of their objection is not as strong as the force of the tramway authority's desire to provide this service for the public. With the Amendment he provides himself with one weapon—the weapon to override the objection of the owners and occupiers. But nowhere in this subsection, even with the Amendment, does he provide himself with the other weapon he requires—the weapon to override the action of the tramway authority if they are doing something which does not hinder the owners and occupiers and evokes no, objection from them, but does provide a danger for the public, and should therefore call for his intervention on that ground. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to reconsider this matter.

§ Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen)
I do not think the Minister even provides himself fully with a weapon for the first part, because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, if there is an objection by less than one-third of those entitled to object; or if they put in their objection too late, then these powers do not come into operation as regards even the first part. I can well understand the intention of making this Amendment, but the Amendment does not secure what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. It would leave him powerless if less than one-third object, or if they object too late and it would certainly leave him powerless if there were no objection at all. I hope he will look at this again and reconsider the whole matter.

§ Mr. Barnes
What hon. Members are really proposing is that under this Bill I should now take powers that in previous legislation have not been conferred upon the Minister of Transport. As I have indicated, this Clause, as amended, follows the model Sections in previous legislation on tramway undertakings and works. I should hardly think that a Bill of this kind, which carries out limited works in connection with a specific undertaking—in this case an exhibition—should he used as the occasion for the Minister to enlarge his powers with regard to 71 general tramway undertakings. Apparently, this has not been considered necessary before. This Amendment appears to give me all I require for the specific exhibition purposes, and I do not see the need to suggest that I should use this occasion for equipping myself with unnecessary powers.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I really am astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's replies. First of all he says, in answer to me, that by this Amendment he has the very powers I am asking him if he has got. That is to say, he says, in the clearest possible terms: "Yes, I have got power to stop the deviation of the tramways so as to prevent the reduction of the space between the kerb and the tramway below 9 ft. 6 ins.—

§ Mr. Barnes
To override objections.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
No. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that, and if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find that he did not. He will find that he answered my question on this Amendment in the affirmative. He has just made another speech saying that he has not got the power and does not want to have it. Well, if we are to make any progress on this Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, before speaking on his own Amendments, exactly what they do. His own answers seem to indicate a lamentable degree of ignorance.
He cannot shield behind model Sections. This Bill, as I understand it, provides under Clause 1 (1) that the new tramways described in Part III shall be laid. Then Subsection (3) provides that the works authorised—that includes the new tramways— shall be made in the lines or situations and according to the levels shown on the deposited plans and sections. Subsection (4), which is now under consideration, provides, in the light of this Amendment, that there shall be no deviation without the consent of the Minister if one-third of the owners or occupiers object within three weeks. But if there are no objections from the owners or occupiers it follows—and I think the right hon. Gentleman now agrees, to judge from his last answer—that those laying the new tramways can deviate to restrict the space to below 9 ft. 6 ins. 72 without the right hon. Gentleman having any power to say that, in the interests of traffic generally in London and in this neighbourhood, they should not do so. Do I really understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not wish to have that power for the particular purpose of seeing that traffic shall flow freely to this exhibition and shall not be restricted by the tramways suddenly turning in towards the kerb? Does he not want power of supervision over deviation from the prescribed lines as laid down by the plan?

§ Mr. Bramall
I apologise for returning to the point, but I do not think my right hon. Friend has quite covered it. He said that this is a power which has not been previously conferred on a Minister, and he asked why it should be necessary in this case. My point is that the matter being dealt with here is not an ordinary case. I imagine that tramway works are not common; indeed, the tramway system is being got rid of in London as fast as possible. It is not an every-day occurrence for work to be carried out in the centre of London when traffic is more than usually congested. In view of the fact that these tramway works will be exceptional, I think it is necessary for the Minister to have exceptional power. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would recognise the extreme danger of tramway lines being too near to the kerb. The congestion to traffic and pedestrians will be considerable. This is a matter which requires some supervision.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Are we not to have a further reply from the right hon. Gentleman? He has given some contradictory answers to the questions I have put, and we cannot let this Clause pass without being told something more. I should like to have his clear assurance that he will carefully consider the matter between now and Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the argument that has been advanced from both sides, but has endeavoured to shield himself behind a model Section which does not apply to the problem that has been raised.

§ Mr. Barnes
I differ. I consider that a good many of the difficulties submitted are purely imaginary and are not likely to arise in practice. If by any chance 73 there should be any substance in what has been said, which I do not for one moment admit, the matter can be considered at a later stage. For the moment, I do not see the purpose of endeavouring to amend legislation that has been found quite adequate for this purpose. I do not see the need of fresh powers for the Minister, powers that have not been necessary in the past; nor do I see that mere repetition of what has been said, necessarily strengthens the case put forward.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
Repetition of the point has been necessary to get it home to the right hon. Gentleman. He showed quite clearly his lack of perception and it was only after the point had been put to him several times that he perceived it. His answer is entirely unsatisfactory. I have asked several times whether he has powers over deviation if the tramway people seek to close the space to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. from the kerb, and all the right hon. Gentleman has said is that this is a model Section. I do not think he knows what are his powers, and I suggest that next weekend—we all know how he spent last weekend—he spends some time considering what powers this Bill gives him.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one further simple question before we pass from this Clause. Subsection (1) deals with particular works. To what extent will payment for the specified works be made out of the Exchequer?

§ Mr. Barnes
This is really a matter that is dealt with in the Financial Resolution. We estimate that the footbridges will cost approximately £130,000. The Hungerford foot-bridge extension is for the purpose of protecting the right of way. There will also be railway works in connection with Waterloo and Charing Cross stations, some of which will be of permanent value to the British Transport Commission, and some of which are works which would probably not have been undertaken except for the purposes of this Exhibition. Discussions are proceding with the Transport Commission to determine the proportion of the costs 74 that will be borne by the Ministry of Transport and the British Transport Commission. A proportion of the costs also to be borne by the Transport Commission arise out of certain of the specified tramway works. Altogether, we anticipate that a sum of £654,000 will be necessary for the works mentioned in this subsection. As I indicated on Second Reading, it is difficult to estimate at the moment the works that will prove to be of permanent value, but discussions will take place between now and when the works are carried out to determine the proportion to be carried by the Ministry of Transport, the Exchequer and the bodies undertaking this work.