CLAUSE 7.—(Private rights of access.) (Hansard, 31 January 1949)

§ Mr. Barnes
I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, to leave out from first "to," to "provide."
I should be glad of your guidance, Mr. Bowles, as I understand that this Amendment is related to that in page 11, line 19, of Clause 10, and is consequential if the latter is agreed to.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles)
I think it would meet the convenience of the Committee if both Amendments were discussed together.

§ Mr. Barnes
This is a matter concerning the acquisition of land. It may be necessary, in order to provide access, to acquire merely a strip of land. Clause 10 deals with the acquisition of land in connection with any work that may be required to be carried out. Both these Amendments provide the additional flexibility to meet the case where it may be necessary to acquire merely sufficient land for the provision of access, in which no works need be necessarily involved. It is desirable to make provision for an eventuality of this kind.

§ Mr. Barnes
I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, after "any," to insert "such."
This Amendment and the three which follow all hang together. Perhaps, therefore, it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with them together. These Amendments are designed to meet points which were raised during Committee. I should, however, say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) that in meeting these points I am not necessarily agreeing that provision is not already made in the Bill. Our purpose is to clarify and to remove any doubt.
The effect of the Amendments is to widen the powers for the provision of alternative access. They widen also the compensation provisions where a user of access is limited by restrictions on the use of a special road. They provide for compensation for disturbance—not already provided for—caused by the stopping up or limitation on the use of a special road. Where such a road is provided it is possible that private access might be rendered ineffective merely by the restrictions on the classes of traffic permitted to use the road. This point is 1396 dealt with in the first Amendment. The Amendments to lines 21 and 23 widen the basis of compensation to include disturbance. Hitherto it was confined merely to depreciation. I was asked during Committee whether the words "any persons" covered tenants as well as owners of property. I have been satisfied that they do include both.

§ Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)
The only question I wish to ask the Minister concerns compensation. I should like an assurance about the basis on which it is to be paid. Will it be for loss actually sustained or for loss which is likely to be incurred? It is difficult to know how it can be properly ascertained.

§ Mr. Barnes
There is a long-standing practice about negotiations for compensation for disturbance, depreciation or acquisition of properties of value. Very often it takes the form of supplying alternative properties or facilities as the case may be. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, from a very long experience, that the compensation procedure will be no different here from that applicable in the case of trunk roads. It is seldom that any grievance or complaint of this kind reaches any magnitude. The general desire is to give full compensation value, generally by seeing that any facilities which are interfered with are replaced to the full.

§ Mr. P. Thorneycroft
I should like once again to thank the Minister for meeting the points put forward from this side. It is important, if provision is to be made for the building of special roads which will obviously damage the interests of individuals, that not only should provision be made for compensation but that it should manifestly include the various classes of damage likely to be suffered by the various types of people affected. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in inserting Amendments, even if merely for clarification, and we think that they go some way to meeting our wishes on the question of compensation.