CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HC Deb 26 July 1967 vol 751 cc822-72

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

Before I call the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) to move the Second Reading of the Bill, perhaps I might announce to the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), nor the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). This will not prevent them from addressing themselves to the kind of arguments which they would have used had their Amendments been selected.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

There may be a few hon. Members who feel that the powers of the City of London are sufficiently various already, but I hope to persuade them that the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill will be beneficent, and not selfish; indeed, that the City of London, as so often before, is taking action to benefit not just its own citizens, but the public at large, and, moreover, as so often before, is taking the lead in breaking fresh ground from which many other cities and their people will benefit.

The Bill seeks to do six main things: first, to make it easier to qualify for election to the Common Council of the City; second, to enable the City of London to provide and to pay for off-street parking outside its own boundaries in neighbouring boroughs, with the agreement of those boroughs; third, to apply the Coal Market Fund, a large sum of money, for educational purposes; indeed, it is intended that it should be used for technological education; fourth, to increase by nine the permitted number of judges of the Central Criminal Court, and to pay for their accommodation. I think that this part of the Bill really is urgent, as hon. Members will agree. Indeed, questions have lately been put to the Attorney-General on this very point.

I think everyone will agree that so far the Bill is good, indeed urgent, and I hope that we will not lose the four good things which I have mentioned by jibbing at the two remaining matters which are the subject of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). The first of these is the protection of Epping Forest. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), whom I greatly admire, will speak about this, and I would make just a general point.

Epping Forest is by far the largest open space administered by a local authority. It is very close to a large population, and therefore especially valuable for amenity. But, for the same reason, it is very desirable for the installations of the various Ministries and bodies which serve this large population. The law is in doubt about Epping Forest, but the Bill will provide a short, simple, and intelligible statement that Parliament entrusted Epping Forest to the City of London for public enjoyment, and that in future only Parliament shall take away pieces of it. We do not seek to make Epping Forest inviolate. Nothing is permanent, but if it is to be violated, it shall be up to the House to say so.

I know that Ministries and public bodies have regard to amenity, but amenity is to public bodies what sleep is to Members of Parliament. We all think it very desirable, but when it comes to the crunch we sacrifice it to whatever seems more important at the time, and the quality of our life, and of our contribution to life, suffers as a result. We may not be able to run our own lives properly here, but at least we can protect Epping Forest.

The last of the six main objectives of the Bill which I am going to mention is the provision of walkways, which has prompted the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central. This matter has already occupied a Select Committee of the House of Lords for 15 hours. I shall try to condense it, but it is bound to take a moment or so. The City has devised this admirable and forward-looking scheme of which other cities, particularly Liverpool, and perhaps Bristol, may soon feel the need.

The purpose of the scheme is to segregate pedestrians—of which the City of London has an exceptional number—from traffic by promoting a network of footpaths, a project which I hope will please the Chairman of the Pedestrians' Association, who I see sitting on the Front Bench in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). These footpaths are to be called walkways, because they are to be different from footpaths and other highways in certain important legal aspects.

Some of these walkways will be at ground level, others underground, but most of them will be above ground, as terraces, bridges across the tops of other buildings, or through buildings. They will be rights of way, but they will not be highways or streets in the legal sense, for various reasons, but principally because a highway is permanent, and the buildings which support these walkways will not be permanent. It will be necessary from time to time to re-develop them, and at the same time to re-route the walkways which they support, or which pass through them.

Since they are not to be highways or streets, the electricity undertakers will have no right to put their cables in them, as they can in ordinary streets. This is the point of which the Amendment complains. We are asked to throw out the whole Bill unless it declares in effect that all walkways are streets for the purposes of electricity undertakers and so that they can use them for their apparatus as a right.

I can understand the feelings of the electricity undertakers. They are keen to supply us with electricity. They are keen to keep up to date, and to seize this new opportunity. They like a system which has no dead ends, which is in effect a grid, and they are keen to avoid procedures which cause delay and expense. Indeed, the City of London has gone to some trouble, and has discussed the matter with the electricity undertakers and agreed that where walkways are at, or below, ground level they shall be considered as streets, and cables may be buried in them as of right; but where the walkways are above ground level, the City feels that the electricity undertakers shall not have this new right, but they will still be able to acquire what they want in other ways. For example, they can now, and will still be able to, acquire easements compulsorily under the 1947 Electricity Act.

In a street the electricity undertakers have rights to take it up for laying, maintenance, adjusting, repairing, renewing, or removing cables. This is not a suitable activity to conduct as of right on someone else's roof. Surely the rights in streets granted to the electricity undertakers by Parliament many years ago envisage that when they start to dig with their drills they will find earth, or at least a sufficient depth of something or other, and will not immediately uncover the heads of a lot of shoppers and typists. It is not suitable that they should then, as of right, lay a wire carrying thousands of volts in someone's ceiling.

Surely the place for high voltage transmission lines is underground, in the street. An overhead walkway is not like a street. It does not have earth under it. It is of light construction; indeed, that is most important to its appearance. It is a few inches thick, and it is temporary. To give electricity undertakers rights on elevated walkways would be to extend their rights and also the scope of the Bill further than our standing instructions allow, without giving others a chance to object.

The Bill does not deprive electricity undertakers of anything. Their existing rights are protected. They still have all their rights in the streets and pavements as before, and the streets and pavements remain as they were before. They can still put cables in them, and they can put them in in any other place by means of a certain procedure, if necessary. These walkways are additional constructions, and we are being asked to extend the rights of the undertakers needlessly and too far, in the view of the City of London.

Furthermore, whatever we may decide here we cannot effectively extend their rights. If we try to do so, this very desirable network of walkways will simply not get built. As envisaged, the City proposes to make it a condition of planning consent that developers shall pay for making the buildings strong enough to carry the walkway, and that the walkway shall then become a right of way through properties. The City proposes to pay no compensation to the owners of the buildings for these two things, and that has been accepted—just—by the property owners' associations concerned.

The only property owner who jibbed at this a little was a prominent public body, which was in a position to cause a good deal of difficulty. The City proposes to acquire, for no compensation whatever, as much as it can possibly get. If a building had to be made strong enough to carry all sorts of electrical apparatus and the walkway could be broken open at any moment, as a street can, and wires carrying thousands of volts laid into it or through the building, property owners could not be expected to welcome it without any compensation.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

I say this in no spirit of patronage, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is technically terribly unsound.

Mr. Smith

This is a technical matter, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member will be dealing with these technical matters when he speaks. I can then ask the leave of the House to answer the points that he raises.

Property owners cannot be expected to welcome these provisions without compensation or, indeed, to accept them. What would happen if such a building caught fire? I do not refer to the cables catching fire; I refer to a building catching fire, making it necessary to cut off the current. How would the fireman achieve it, and what would the insurance companies think of it? I would have thought that the property owners concerned would wish to have an opportunity of appealing against the Bill. In my view, the walkways would simply not get built and we and the electricity undertakers would have prevented an important step forward. The undertakers would have gained nothing and pedestrians in this City and, later, in other cities, would be forced into the streets and killed.

The Bill does several things. It protects the rights of the public to enjoy Epping Forest; it relieves the log jam at the Old Bailey; it applies new money to technical education; it provides off-street parking, and it segregates pedestrians from the traffic which kills them. Surely we do not want to lose all this for one point in the Bill. Surely we can accept—indeed, acclaim—the principle of these walkways—not only to the City of London—and let the Bill go to Committee, where all that hon. Members say here will be taken into consideration.

The point concerning electricity undertakers is only one among many relating to the walkways, and the walkways themselves are only one topic among several in the Bill. A Select Committee of the House of Lords has considered the Bill for 30 hours and has concluded that it should proceed. I urge the House to do likewise and to grasp the good in the Bill while it can, by giving it a Second Reading now and thus letting it go to Committee, which is where it should go and where the complicated point raised here can be more properly dealt with.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

If it will give any comfort to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) I say immediately that the Bill is a general mixture of excellent intentions—if, in certain limited respects, its application is faulty. I can assure the hon. Member that I am not quarrelling in any way with the broad intentions of the Bill; they are probably excellent, as I say.

The hon. Member should also appreciate that I am concerned with two relatively narrow but important points—Part II, which deals with the City walkways and the pedestrian precincts which are proposed in the City—and, to a more limited extent, with Clause 27, which makes further provision for the protection and strengthening of public rights in Epping Forest. Like anyone else who is concerned with the improvement of our cities and the preservation of the amenities and beauties of the countryside, I support, in their general purpose, both parts of the Bill with which I am concerned.

My doubts arise as to the effect of the Bill, as at present drafted, on the obligations and rights of public utility undertakings, and especially the electricity supply industry, because for technical reasons it is most affected by the proposed changes if this Bill becomes law.

The London Electricity Board is deeply concerned about the provisions in the Bill as it came from another place and its effect, if passed, on their obligations for the planning, installing, management and operation of one of the most densely loaded city electrical networks in the country and probably in the world, with the possible exception of New York.

This very dense loading of the City of London electrical network is increasing all the time. It is due to the erection of much taller buildings, with the very large installations which are now made to provide electrical power, with all its applications, and the extended use of electricity for heating, cooking, air cooling and air conditioning. New electric lifts are being installed all the time, with a heavy carrying capacity. Many industrial processes are still being carried on in the City. New office processes are being operated which involve the use of electrical machinery.

The load on this network is increasing all the time and it is the special responsibility of the London Electricity Board, which is the statutory undertaking to provide for it. I have some figures in this connection. Since 1948, when the London Board took over from its various predecessors, 88 miles of additional cable have been placed within the City of London. That is a considerable mileage. No fewer than 357 extra transformer chambers and sub-station chambers have become necessary since 1948.

When the hon. Member talks about electricity undertakings excavating with picks into overhead walkways, I must tell him that that is not the way in which it is done. I make no complaint because he is not a technical man. But it is necessary that the electricity undertaking should have access to consumers' premises at many points—not just at ground level but at all other levels, too. A more vertical City means the network must also rise. When new means of access are provided to buildings by walkways, the walkways must be suitably constructed in the technical sense.

I assure the hon. Member that the electricity authorities would not place wires charged at thousands and thousands of volts in close proximity to buildings or within conduits in walkways. Engineers know very much better than that. The City of London electrical network is not an abstract matter of business of the London Electricity Board but a matter of general concern to consumers, because it is an obligation on the Board to give a supply efficiently and reliably 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. The network is also a matter of vital concern to the industrial and commercial life of the great City of London. When a breakdown occurs, as it can occur all too easily under heavy loading, it is important that engineers and workmen responsible for putting matters right should have immediate and undisputed access to their cables and other apparatus. Without that, much money can be lost by those whose work is impeded by the failure.

The need for this right has long been recognised by Governments and Parliament. The undisputed right of access to cables and apparatus under statute law was recognised in the early days of electricity supply and has been recognised in all the subsequent Acts since the 1880s. In all the statutory provisions from the first Electric Lighting Act, Parliament has not only imposed certain obligations on undertakings but in return has given them rights independent of the local authorities. This does not mean that the statutory undertaker need not notify the local authority. It must notify and consult. But the undertakers have their rights independently, given by Parliament.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand that a highway has been defined hitherto as a place where the public have a right to go—and where the public had a right to go, public utilities had an equal right of access.

But this private Measure proposes to extinguish to a great extent the rights of statutory undertakings granted to them by Parliament, for walkways will be a new kind of legal creation. They will be barred to vehicles and open to the public on foot, but they will not be highways in the ordinary accepted sense. Under the provisions of the Bill, existing streets may be turned into walkways, which means that where the electricity, gas or water undertakings have previously had a statutory right in a street, that will be taken away. If the Bill becomes law, in the City of London the statutory undertakers will lose their right of installation and of access to their apparatus. It will be at the discretion of the local authority or, as the hon. Member conceded, at the discretion of private owners.

On these occasions it is often argued that local authorities and private owners will act reasonably. There is no guaran- tee that they will do so in all circumstances. However, let us take the case not at its worst but at its best and assume that they will act reasonably, that the City of London Corporation will work closely with the London Electricity Board and that private owners will see the good of co-operating with the London Electricity Board. But is it not still fair to argue that if changes are needed in the law relating to the rights of statutory undertakings, because of modern changes in the construction of cities, including the building of elevated walkways, this should first of all be the subject of some general investigation by the Government, which should be followed by general legislation?

It seems to me wrong in principle that rights which have been given on a statutory basis for a long period should be extinguished by private legislation. This is not planning. It is the very negation of planning. I argue very strongly that changes of this magnitude should not be made by the back door of private mixed Bills. Such changes in the statutory rights of undertakers should not be made by the back door of private mixed content Bills but by the front door of properly digested public legislation.

I turn to Clause 27, which deals with the public land held and managed, admirably, by the Corporation, including Epping Forest. Here again I concede that there is no point of difference between us in that the general intention is admirable. But, once again, statutory rights of public utilities are to be extinguished. Under the present law the Minister may investigate and authorise electricity installations after due public inquiry into objections. Also under the present law the Minister and the public utility must have due regard to amenity in the matter of the giving or withholding of approval to installations. Under the Bill, instead of the power being ultimately with the Minister, subject to the right of local inquiry, the decision will be made unchecked, by the local authority.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Is my hon. Friend not aware that while the Minister has power to take decisions after a public inquiry, he does not always agree with his own public inquiry? Stansted is an example.

Mr. Palmer

It is common experience that Ministers, like other human beings, are imperfect. I am not suggesting that because public inquiries investigate matters, the right decisions are necessarily reached. But there is a greater chance of the correct decision being reached in those circumstances than if we leave it arbitrarily to one local authority. There may be a strong case of course for changing public legislation, but it should not be done by a private Bill.

Now, a word about the interest of the Electricity Board and other public utilities in the matter. My interest, of course, is prompted, as the House knows, by the interest which I have in following fairly closely the affairs of the electricity supply industry. It has been said that the London Electricity Board is, as it were, the last obstinate objector. It may well be that it has been strongest on the matter. It has the greatest responsibility and the greatest technical concern. But grave doubts have been expressed about the implications of the Bill as at present drafted by all the public utilities in the country—water, gas and telephones—and, if electricity had been to the front, this is because it is technically the most affected.

In its objections to the Bill the London Electricity Board is fully supported by the Electricity Council. I think that I shall be in order in saying, further, that I understand that in the doubts which it has the Electricity Council is backed by the Ministry of Power. I wish that there were on the Front Bench at present a representative of the Ministry of Power so that that assertion could be confirmed in the House.

One can understand why public utility undertakings are so bothered about it. As the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster said, what the City of London does today other local authorities may do tomorrow. We could find general public legislation being changed by a whole series of private Acts.

Not all hon. Members, not all my hon. Friends, are enthusiastic about the City of London Corporation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I am.

Mr. Palmer

I am glad to except my hon. Friend. He can be a little eccentric on many matters. Hon. Members support the Bill, because they believe it to be sound in intention. They are genuine lovers of the countryside; they advocate the improvement of cities. I understand and respect of their feelings, which I often share, but I remind them that if we are to maintain in this country a high and comfortable standard of life, it is no good trying to suppress technology. One has to come to terms with technology and adapt it to modern needs.

It seems to me that because of lack of thought and knowledge a rather crude attempt is being made here to suppress technology. At the discretion of the Chair, the Amendment which I put down was not called, but, as regards the immediate future of the Bill, I, like the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, am confident that the substantial public utility objections will be carefully examined in Committee, and, if I may, I add the hope that they will be rather more carefully examined in a Select Committee of this House than they were examined by the other place. I am open to be convinced that the Bill should now be allowed to go to Committee, but I make no apology for expressing in general debate views on an important issue which requires the most careful investigation in the full light of day.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) because—

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether other hon. Members are noticing it, but it seems to me that we are being refrigerated in the Chamber at present. May note be taken of this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving)

Yes. I shall have the matter inquired into.

Mr. Lewis

Perhaps the cause of the complaint which the hon. Gentleman has just made comes from one of the advances in technology to which my hon. Friend was referring.

My hon. Friend said that it was somewhat eccentric of me to support the Corporation of the City of London. I do not know why. I declare my interest at once. I am pleased to say that my first employment was with the City Corporation. I have always found the City Corporation to be more than fair and honest, even though I strongly disagree with the political complexion of its Council. The City of London, even with its 100 per cent. Conservative Council, has in some respects, and particularly in the respect which interests me, done a magnificent job over the years. I refer to what I call the preservation and maintenance of public lands.

First, I pay a tribute to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) for the way in which he moved the Second Reading. He speaks as representing two of the greatest citadels of Conservatism. I speak as one of the representatives of one of the greatest Socialist boroughs in the East End of London, West Ham. We are proud of the great work which the City of London Corporation has done in West Ham itself, in West Ham Park, and we greatly value all it has done over the years on Wanstead Flats. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) here. He will know that I mean no disparagement when I say that, although his constituency rightly enjoys the benefit of Wanstead Flats, it is not so overcrowded and industrialised as the West Ham docks area.

I am not against technological advance. I am not against progress in the supply of electricity. But it is no good having all sorts of electrical gadgets in one's home if one has nowhere to go to get a bit of sunshine and recreation. In the East End of London we have very limited open spaces. Those which we have within our boundaries or immediately available to us, West Ham Park, Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest, are and have been looked after in admirable fashion by the City of London Corporation.

My hon. Friend has stressed that the electricity authority wishes to keep certain rights which it has and it ought not to be deprived of them. These things always start like that. I remember a terrific row a few years ago when there was a scheme to take over part of Wanstead Flats for schools. That was the original plan. But it was switched to housing. Then the land was wanted for something else. Thank God, we had the City Corporation behind us. It refused, and led a big campaign to prevent any such thing coming about. Once these encroachments start, others follow. We know that this has happened. Land in this part of London is both scarce and expensive, and we are very jealous of it.

First, I speak as Member of Parliament for West Ham, North, but I think that I speak for my three hon. Friends who represent the remainder of West Ham and East Ham which have constituency rights and interests adjoining Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest. I know that I speak for my local authority, which, unlike the Corporation of the City of London, is a completely Socialist authority. I have here a letter from my town clerk in which he says that our council is very much in favour of the Bill and wants every action taken to ensure that it proceeds quickly.

Very often, there are Clauses or parts of Clauses in a Bill which one may not like. I have a statement which the City of London has sent to all M.P.s, although not all hon. Members may have it with them now. In it, the City puts its case for the Second Reading and explains the reasons for supporting Clause 27. It says that if the Bill is referred to the Committee the Corporation will submit for approval Amendments to restrict the Clause to Epping Forest. I hope that it does not do that, because the Clause at present gives it certain powers concerning a number of areas. I could even find fault with its statement on a number of issues which, from the City's point of view, support the Bill, but we all know that this is not the object of the exercise. If the Bill has a Second Reading, as I hope, it will go to a Committee, which will argue the detailed points. Some may be good and others may be bad, but that does not matter; this is the normal procedure. Let the Committee deal with the points already raised and those which I think that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) will probably raise.

Far be it from me to stand up for the landlords or those who want compensation. But I agree that they should obviously receive fair treatment. I have no doubt that the City has done that in the past, and that when the Bill becomes an Act it will see that there is fair play. There is appeal to the Lands Tribunal if a matter cannot be resolved amicably.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) went to great lengths to explain that many of the statutory undertakings were of the same opinion as the London Electricity Board. I have nothing against the statutory undertakings. Good luck to them. They are entitled to express their opinion. I am more concerned with the elected authorities, and as far as I know all of those in the area are in favour of the Bill's principle. Some might have objections to particular parts, but they can make them in Committee.

There is also the question of the Minister entering the matter if statutory authorities go through the procedure of public inquiry and appeal. Although we may have a good Minister at the moment, and much as I should like him to be there for life, he may not remain for various reasons. He may get a higher job, which I hope is the case, or even go to higher places. We might get a Minister who was not so good, and even—God forbid‡—a Government which was not so good. There is not much chance of that, but if it happened I would not trust an appeal to Ministers of that sort.

I intervened to mention the Stansted inquiry—a great public inquiry. The local authorities were almost unanimous and the inquiry was against the Government. But the Minister said that he was not concerned with the public inquiry, and this could happen again. The City of London is one authority, but all the authorities concerned would have rights under the Bill if it becomes an Act, which would safeguard the ordinary people of the back streets of the East End of London. That is my point. They have not many places now where they can go, particularly the kiddies. Here is an opportunity for the City to insist on maintaining that which has been handed down to it over hundreds of years, and I think that they have done the job very well.

We all rightly moan and groan about the terrible job we have in getting through traffic in the City because of parked vehicles. The City is trying to do something to get rid of some of the vehicles, by arrangement with the local authorities. It is not my job to worry about how it will work out the question of payment and so on. The local authorities will discuss that with the City of London. The scheme to get the vehicles out of the City and into neighbouring areas, leaving the City a bit freer for traffic, is a very good idea, if it can be worked.

I am not trying to plug our own interests, but sometimes it takes me two hours to get to the House from the other side of the City. I must sometimes park my car and come by tube, and then find that I have to return in the middle of the night to get the car. That is not so good. If the City of London scheme can be worked it will be a step in the right direction.

The City of London will start something with its walkways which a Socialist council may follow. Usually it is the other way around—a Socialist council does something first and the Conservatives follow. We have a big development scheme in Stratford for which our Council has now been given the go-ahead. We waited years for permission under the Tory Government but now we have it we shall have a great shopping centre and hope to have a system of walkways, following the example which the City will set. I hope that we shall improve on its ideas, and perhaps develop a better scheme.

People must now walk on the road or the kerb-side when they go shopping in the City or any of the shopping centres, particularly in the West End, when they are really crowded, on a Thursday night or at Christmas, for example. This happens in Regent Street, Oxford Street and elsewhere because the pavements are so chock a block with people milling backwards and forwards that one is in danger of being knocked down. If the City can work out a system of walkways such as that suggested, it will do a good job, and I support it right up to the hilt. There may be questions of compensation and methods but, generally speaking, I think that they are incidental.

I therefore give my warm support to the Second Reading and hope, as an ex-employee of the City of London Corporation, that it has its Bill, that the Committee does not do too much harm to it, and that the Corporation can make progress in its endeavours.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will forgive me if I do not immediately follow what he said. I noted what he said about the Reasoned Amendment, which has not been selected, and I was obliged to him. I shall refer to it later.

I decided to oppose the Bill by a Reasoned Amendment, which will be on the record although it was not called, when I received a letter on the notepaper of a highly respected firm of chartered auctioneers, estate agents, surveyors and valuers, which I think I should read to the House. It says: I read with interest a short report in the Estates Gazette of 17th June of your"— that is, my— unsuccessful attempt to introduce a Bill giving owners threatened with compulsory acquisition the right to approach the district valuer. It was in that context that I deplored that this Bill, promoted by a local authority which uses its own valuation officer and not a district valuer, fails to provide that right, but provides that when the local authority is determined to acquire private property compulsorily a fair market price shall be decided upon not by impartial valuers but by valuation officers who are employed by the acquiring authority itself and are, therefore, regarded by the public as owing a duty to their employers to negotiate the cheapest possible price.

My correspondent went on, with reference to the remarks that I had made in my speech to the House, to say: May I earnestly assure you that what you say is true. I can speak with experience insofar as I was— I will here paraphrase what he said for reasons that I shall explain later— for three years employed by a large local authority as an assistant valuer. He goes on: It was made abundantly clear to me then that my duty was to the local authority, and I was instructed to negotiate the best possible terms when dealing with the claimants rather than pay what I considered to be fair compensation The technique was, and I believe still is, for the local authority valuer to discuss informally with the district valuer"— who is employed by the Inland Revenue— and obtain his ceiling, and the game is then to negotiate a settlement as far below that ceiling as possible. No district valuer likes to be made a fool of, and in consequence the plan is for him to keep reducing that ceiling. Perhaps I might here interpose that I know that the House will have in mind that the point of the procedure to which my correspondent was referring is that when the local authority valuer is going to acquire property compulsorily for his authority he has to go to the district valuer to get this ceiling price, because when the authority applies to the Treasury for loan sanction in respect of the purchase, the price has to be approved by the district valuer.

My correspondent goes on: I can recall a case some years ago where the district valuer told me that his opinion was around £35,000 but, if we could not buy at this figure, he was prepared to reconsider the matter. In the event a settlement was reached below £20,000. A friend in the district valuer's department recently told me in confidence, of a case wherein the local authority valuer has just offered 20 per cent. of the district valuer's valuation. My correspondent goes on in some detail about a case now current in which he knows for certain that the district valuer's figure was appreciably in excess of the local authority offer. He continues after giving details of the case, which I should not care to reveal: There was some correspondence on the lines which you are pursuing in the Estates Gazette some three years or so ago. Unfortunately the Editor declined to print my last letter, 'the laws of libel being such as they are'. And, of course, what he had in mind was the example of a whole valuation department of a local authority, 134 valuation officers in number, sueing for libel a councillor for having raised the question of the advisability of this policy in the public Press on the ground that their professional integrity was being impugned.

My correspondent continues: I write this letter in my private capacity but have used my firm's notepaper so that you can verify my credentials. I must of course, request you to keep the contents of my letter confidential. I telephoned him immediately and said that I should like to read the letter in the House of Commons, and we agreed certain paraphrasing and I assured him that I would take every possible precaution that his confidentiality was preserved, for reasons which I think I need not explain to the House.

I have heard it said that anyone who has fears that the procedure was as my correspondent had said could appeal to the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. All I can say about that is that it is a good argument, but if anybody seriously maintains it, he is welcome to come to me and I will personally pin on him my personal award of the gold medal for naivety of the year. I therefore think it is important that this man's confidence should be respected, because what he fears is that in his professional life he will henceforth, if his identity comes out, be victimised by the local authority valuers with whom he will have to deal professionally on behalf of his clients.

When I was speaking to my correspondent on the telephone to get his permission to quote the letter he told me of an incident about which I think the House would be interested to learn also. It concerns an old-established shop in a grey area which was being compulsorily acquired by the local authority. The original offer was £1,200. That was increased first to £2,000 and then to £2,500, and then, to my correspondent's surprise, the owner's solicitor settled behind his estate agent's back for £3,500, which my correspondent did not think was a fair price. The solicitor apologised to my correspondent and explained that he had been asked to do this by the owner's brother, who is the director of a large international firm, because he feared that the owner was on the verge of committing suicide or of becoming permanently unhinged and the only thing to do was to close the matter and put an end to the psychological strain of trying to get a fair price from the local authority valuer. That was a totally unsolicited story volunteered to me by this professional man of his own personal experience of dealing with a local authority valuer for a client.

I think that in submitting this evidence to the House of the views of professional people I should put forward the general argument and background upon which this objection of mine to what I regard as an abuse of the rights of private property owners is based. My first submission is that the beginning of justice is that a man must not be judge in his own cause, and that that goes for local authorities just as much as for individuals. Yet it is a fact that some of the greatest local authorities in the world, the councils of many British cities, laugh at this elementary principle by the practice which they employ.

The horrid business of compulsory acquisition of private property is sometimes necessary but always regrettable. But it is rendered far more intolerable by the way that it is carried out in these British cities today. Who does the assessing for the compensation? It is the interested party, the compulsorily acquiring council itself. Most of our local authorities in a similar position arrange for the valuing to be done by the district valuer. He is the employee of the independent Board of Inland Revenue and is not the servant of the acquiring authority.

According to the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors who wrote a letter to The Times dated 29th April this year: The district valuer is, therefore"— I emphasise the word "therefore" used by the President of the Royal Institution— an impartial assessor", the implication being that valuers employed by the acquiring authority are not impartial. The position with the local authority that uses its own valuation officers is that its own valuation officers negotiate and assess. Very few people know that such a state of affairs exists. Its existence was specifically denied by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in a letter to The Times dated 18th May.

I tabled a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask him, so that the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors might be authoritatively instructed, which local authorities in England and Wales did not use the district valuer but used their own employees as valuation officers to value property which they compulsorily acquired. I will read the list from the Chancellor's answer in alphabetical order: Birmingham, Brighton, Bromley, Cardiff, Dover, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdon, Liverpool, City of London, Greater London Council, Manchester, Newcastle, Salford, Sheffield, Stoke, Swansea, Torquay and Worthing, making a total of 19.

Therefore, when the House has an opportunity to consider a Bill promoted by one of these authorities, it might reasonably ask whether this situation should exist, because where it does exist there are bound to be pressures to be resisted, and those pressures are all bound to be on the side of parsimony and in the interests of the ratepayers, which certainly should be protected but no more than is absolutely fair to the property owner. The good servant will always wish to please his master with a bargain in the market place. Indeed, economy is bound to be equated with virtue by the employers of the valuation officers, for they are the guardians of the public purse.

I am glad to see the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) here because she has unrivalled experience as a Chief Whip of the majority party in the old L.C.C. In 1962, she told the House, when we were debating the White Paper on the Reorganisation of London Government, … valuers … acquire land for the Council, who negotiate to get the best terms … in the Council's interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 283] Again, I quote the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), who opposed my Motion for leave to introduce the Bill to which my correspondent whom I have quoted referred. Boasting, he said: I used to be a city treasurer, and many times I have objected to what I considered to be an exorbitantly high figure fixed by the District Valuer. That may be called pressure, but it was pressure in the interests of the ratepayer. … In one case the parties were the owner of a public house and the ratepayers. I know where my sympathies were in that case—they were with the ratepayers, and not with the publican. I succeeded in getting £1,000 knocked off the valuation. This sort of thing happened more than once in my own local authority, and I should imagine that it has happened with many other local authorities too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 976.] This was a boast in this House of sympathy for one party in a negotiation in which the duty of a public official was to see that fair market value was paid. I quote also from the judgment of the Lands Tribunal in the case of Ansaldi v. Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. It said of the valuation officer: … it is desirable to distinguish his functions from that of a district valuer, who is an independent official whose duty it is to assess value and advise". It said that the valuation officer acted by contrast as the local authority's … agent, and he reflects the obligations of his principals to ensure that the ratepayers acquire property as cheaply as is reasonably possible. The Tribunal recognised the pressures operating upon officials employed in this capacity. Always, of course, there is the dread shadow in the background of a possible surcharge on the valuation officer by the district auditor. If the valuation officer is too generous, his local authority will be surcharged. None of these pressures operates on the District Valuer.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

But the hon. Gentleman has really solved his problem. He has quoted the Lands Tribunal. Under this Bill, the City of London is agreeing that, if there is any argument or question, then the Lands Tribunal, to which he is paying tribute, will have the power to arbitrate and the decision will be final. If it is such a good tribunal, surely that is the sort of thing we want.

Mr. Iremonger

I said that I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would forgive me if I did not take that point at thebeginning of what I wanted to say. Of course it is a proper point to make but I would rather deal with it when I think it best in the logical order of my argument. If his argument were absolutely valid, there would be no basis for my case, but there are serious difficulties in accepting that as a complete alibi.

The indignant local authority valuation officers themselves cry out and say with pathetic sincerity, when their ambiguous position is questioned, that they are fair. I am convinced that honourable professional men do their best to be fair but one cannot help wondering who is going to believe them. Certainly it will not be the disappointed owner who ruefully compares his offer from the valuation officer with his own assessment of the value of his home. He must be put in mind of Emerson's phrase: The louder he talked of his honour. The faster we counted our spoons. This may be unjust on valuation officers. It may be cruel. But can we blame the private owner for this attitude? Justice may be done but in these circumstances it is not seen to be done. I quote from a letter I received from a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who is the head of an old-established and highly regarded firm in north-west London. He said: Why is it possible to settle with the district valuer and never with … the local authority valuation officer —without unpleasantness and a tremendous fight? In fact, I have called the county hall"— this was the L.C.C.— the 'den of Forty Thieves' … I have come to the conclusion that all the affairs of the County Hall are governed entirely by politics and that the word 'justice' simply does not exist. Apparently, politics is having sympathy with the ratepayers and none with the publican who happens to have money invested in private property.

These are not my personal opinions. I have quoted them to show how responsible people are capable of these feelings. Although I must deplore those feelings, they are held. It is a nasty situation. It is unfair to the owner, who may be forgiven for seeing the local authority valuation officer as a hired assassin moving in to the kill. It is even more unfair to the unfortunate officers themselves for it places them in an invidious position, and one of the prime purposes of my advocacy of a change in this system is to relieve those officers of the odium they incur through carrying out their almost impossible duty.

Quite apart from the pressures, there is also the question of efficiency. The local authority valuation officer is less well equipped than the district valuer to do the job. The district valuer is automatically supplied with details of every property sold and every lease stamped in his area. Facts and figures reach him from the Estate Duty Office whenever probate is granted. The local authority valuation officer merely depends on Press reports of auction prices and the records of his own past deals—apparently, according to the hon. Member for Dundee, West, with a little sympathetic encouragement from the city treasurer.

The local authority valuation officer is not reliably informed of the current trend of the free market and it can hardly be wondered at that the compensation he offers is so unrealistic. One cannot wonder, therefore, that constituents often come to hon. Members in tears, or that their relatives may be frightened by their threats of suicide. It was after all Mr. Pilgrim's suicide which caused the whole principle of a fair market price to be accepted by this House.

The orthodox reply is that the owner can appeal to the Lands Tribunal, and that is true. But life is not as simple as that, as the monkey found when he stuck his hand in the jar, closed it over the nuts and could not pull it out again. The dispossessed householder has to produce the cash for his new house or lose the deal, and for that he must secure the compensation first of all on his old house. It may be that he cannot afford the delay incurred in an appeal. Such a man is often forced, therefore, in order to get the cash, to accept less than he thinks right because money now is more important than more money later. Even when an owner does accept delay through appeal, there is a further deterrent. He may have to pay the costs of his appeal to the Lands Tribunal. Therefore, many thousands of householders who are under the axe accept prices lower than fair market value rather than run the risk of costs and the certainty of delay in appealing to the Lands Tribunal.

Estate agents agree that these valuation officers drive hard bargains and that their initial offers are low. On the books of a chartered surveyor and estate agent friend of mine is a case where, over 12 months, the initial offer almost doubled because his client could wait. One has to ask therefore: Why did it start so low and what would have happened if he could not have afforded to wait?

Let me give an example from the Estate Gazette Digest of Cases, 1951–60, which reports 22 appeals to the Lands Tribunal against the London County Council. In the 12 cases where the local authority valution officer's final offer can be compared with the Lands Tribunal award, the award bumped up the local authority valuation officer's offer on average by 80 per cent. I have quoted this figure in the House before, and it has not been challenged. Details can be found in c. 694–5 of Vol. 698 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

A friend of mine, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, demonstrated to me from his files that his average achievement for clients who were victims of compulsory purchase order proceedings was to bump up the offer by 12½ per cent., but that where his clients could afford to wait and he could protract negotiations for a year or more, his average achievement was to bump up the offer by 72 per cent.

It is doubly wrong that the property owner should be at such a disadvantage for, at best, compulsory purchase creates an abnormal situation. The buyer knows that in the end he can take the property by force. Thus the healthy relationship of willing buyer, willing seller, is upset. The council frequently does not want all that the vendor has to offer. Most of the vendors would prefer not to sell at all. The man who has spent £300 on his garden—draining the lawn, paving pathways, building a wall and greenhouse—is appalled to find that he is not offered a penny for it. In a normal market he can stay in his home or stick out for the price that he really wants. Therefore, one must ask whether the acquiring authorities need make things worse by seeming to load the dice in their own favour. It would be better for them to hand over negotiations and assessment to the independent district valuer.

That we have compensation today based on fair market value is due to the action of Conservative Members, of whom I was among the foremost, in the bias against the private owner in the last 40 years or so when the State and public authorities wanted to acquire his property.

It disturbs me to see that there is a persistent bias against the rights of ownership of private property, and I think it right to use the opportunity of debate on Second Reading of this Bill to ventilate this grievance and encourage those responsible to mend their ways.

8.15 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet (Peckham)

I have been asked to intervene in the debate by the Southwark Borough Council, whose interest stems from its desire to build two large estates which will incorporate walkways. As has been so rightly said, it will be glad to have the experience of the City of London to see how far the powers being sought in the Bill will be satisfactory and adequate if it comes to seek such powers. I am, therefore, anxious to see the Bill achieve Second Reading and have such matters as have been raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), if they can be discussed in Committee, referred to Committee for careful consideration.

This is the line that the House has taken ever since I have been a Member. It is not customary to issue Instructions to the Committee, nor is it customary to prevent Second Reading unless there is a great deal of feeling against it. We rely upon the adequacy with which the Committee will examine the proposals. I am anxious that the Bill should be given Second Reading and that it should proceed to Committee where notice will be taken of the debate that has taken place in this Chamber. I feel confident that this will happen.

Having listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central on the London Electricity Board's objections to the powers which the City of London wishes to secure in respect of walkways, I was a little unclear as to what they might be. It struck me that were there to be no walkways, as the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) has suggested, were the City without power to impose the conditions it wishes to impose, where would be the London Electricity Board's opportunity to deal with this increased load which has impressed the House tonight?

In the Bill definite provision is made for walkways above and below street level communicating with the streets. They will be treated as streets and the rights of statutory undertakers will be preserved. We are all most anxious that what is necessary shall be preserved, but we are likewise concerned that this new development shall not be impeded in any way such as would appear to be possible were the City not to obtain these powers. I hope that the House will pass the Bill as it has been drafted.

I am interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who has now gone from the House, partly because he mentioned my name. I did use one word, which I subsequently corrected, when I mentioned that the valuers were getting the best terms for their councils. I omitted to say "subject to the law". The law states that the vendor is entitled to the market price and it is the business of any valuer to find out what the market price is in the case of any particular property.

It is a matter of opinion, but, as has been pointed out, a valuer is a professional man who has a standard or code of conduct to which he must conform. He must value according to proper standards and to the very best of his judgment the price of the property concerned, having no regard to the parties to the transaction.

I understand that the instructions to the members of the valuation department in the normal way are that they shall use their best endeavours to arrive at a fair price and not do their best for the council. There is no member of the council who would know what a fair price is and there is no member of the council who would even be made aware of what price was being offered. There have been times when I myself have represented to the valuers' department that a price might not have been fair because of the kind of prices being offered privately for similar dwellings in the neighbourhood, but I have always had a reasoned statement of the situation with which I could not but be content.

I make these observations not because it is necessary in the House to protect valuers and to show that the valuers of local authorities are impartial, because this is not the occasion on which that subject should be discussed. But if the hon. Member for Ilford, North is so concerned that the law should be altered—and he recently unsuccessfully tried to persuade the House to allow him to introduce a Bill to do so—he must endeavour and go on endeavouring to change the general law, not make an attack on a private Bill of this nature which contains so many provisions of value to the public. He ought not to be allowed to hold up the progress of such a Bill, and I hope that the House will give it the Second Reading which it deserves.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) will forgive me if I do not comment on her remarks in detail, as my interest in the Bill is somewhat different from hers. I would only point out in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) that, having devoted some part of her speech to rebutting my hon. Friend's case, the hon. Lady then said that he ought never to have put it at all. I see that she appreciates the inconsistency of her stand on this matter.

Mrs. Corbet

I see no such inconsistency. Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks by that last remark.

Mr. Jenkin

I entirely absolve the hon. Lady from any suggestion that she accepted my charge.

I should like to discuss Clause 27 and to begin by saying that I agree with almost everything said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He and I sit at opposite ends of the political seesaw, but this time we are both firmly at the same end, and I am delighted that that should be so. No Bill introduced in the present Session is of more interest to my constituents than this. They may not recognise that other legislation, particularly the Finance Act, may directly affect them more than this, but this is the Bill on which they have written to me shoals and shoals of letters.

Clause 27 is intended to clarify the law, because the law about the powers over Epping Forest is uncertain, and in so clarifying the law to strengthen the hand of the conservators of Epping Forest in resisting encroachment upon the Forest. I do not need to tell the House the history of this unique piece of common land which lies so near to London, particularly to the East End of London, and I have the utmost sympathy with what the hon. Member for West Ham, North had to say about that.

Suffice it to say that in the 1870s the City Corporation was successful in buying up some 3,000 acres, all that then remained of what had once been a vast and extensive forest. It saved it from being enclosed by the local lords of the manor and eventually succeeded in promoting the Epping Forest Act, 1878, which ensured that Epping Forest, those parts which the Corporation had and anything which could be added to it, should be preserved for the benefit of the public in perpetuity. We now have a unique stretch of natural forest on the outskirts of north-east London lying in a great crescent in a North-Easterly direction and now extending to nearly 6,000 acres and representing in the best phrase—I do not claim any originality for it—a uniquely valuable lung for London which all those who have anything to do with it wish to preserve under the terms of the 1878 Act.

Epping Forest is used by hundreds of thousands of people every year. Many of them like to congregate in large numbers in some of the more popular spots where they can have their picnics. Others prefer to walk in small groups or alone along the beautiful woodland walks which abound in the forest.

In the 19th century the pressure on Epping Forest was enclosure by the lords of the manor but in the 20th century the pressure is encroachment by the mounting tide of suburban and other development. The conservators are facing growing pressures for the use of forest land for roads, for wayleaves of all sorts, for land for electricity substations, or stilling ponds and other things of that sort. They are frequently and inevitably in conflict—and I do not use that word in any pejorative sense—with local authorities in the area who have their own statutory responsibilities.

I mentioned stilling ponds. Last year, there was an argument concerning my constituency when the local authority believed that its new Monkhams Valley drainage scheme required the construction on forest land of a concrete stilling pond to trap the flood water which came down in heavy rainstorms, and in this it was supported by local residents who had suffered severe flooding three or four times in the last decade. The conservators took the view that they had no power to grant the right to build a stilling pond, and they were most reluctant to see it, because it would he an encroachment on and an unnatural use of forest land. They suggested instead scooping a shallow natural pond and fringing it with shrubs which could trap a great deal of the debris which is washed off the forest in heavy rain and which was part of the cause of the flooding. I am happy to say that this argument has now been resolved along the lines of the conservators' suggestion.

I should like at this point to pay tribute to the Forest Superintendent, Mr. Alfred Qvist, who is a most remarkable man. He combines great skill as an expert in all aspects of forestry with great toughness as an administrator, which can often give rise to conflict. Thus he is in the front line of the battle to prevent encroachments on Epping Forest.

The Conservators consist of Councillors of the City Corporation and verderers elected by the commoners of Epping Forest. The local authorities are not represented on the Epping Forest Committee, and in the past, sometimes, there has been a tendency for the Forest authorities perhaps not to take that account of local public opinion that one might wish to see on certain matters, or to warn local people what was likely to happen. We had an argument in Woodford a few months ago when a great avenue of poplar trees had to be felled because they had reached the end of their life; and I think a lot of the outcry could have been avoided if members of the public had been taken into the confidence of the Corporation before anything happened, but they were not.

However, in general, the public—and I certainly speak here for the vast majority of my constituents—fully support the Conservators in their efforts to prevent encroachments on the Forest land, but the point is that the pressures on the Conservators are growing. They are not now from the private landowners, or even, now, the private developers; they are from the great statutory corporations, the boards, the authorities, the local authorities and Government Departments. All these bodies have compulsory powers, and all these bodies, quite rightly, have their own statutory duties and tend to be very cost conscious; they tend to look for the cheapest solution to their problems. What they very often face in this area is a choice between a solution of their own problem which may be expensive, which may be difficult, which may be inconvenient, or a solution which appears to be cheap and easy and highly convenient. They may face the choice of finding land outside the Forest, a way round outside the Forest, or the choice of exercising compulsory powers in the Forest, and this is a great temptation for them. Naturally, they would far rather choose the cheap and easy solution.

Usually—in fact, I think it is probably true to say virtually always—in those circumstances agreement between the authority concerned and the Conservators, is achieved by the wayleave, or whatever it may be, being granted either on terms with regard, for instance, to burying electricity lines, gas pipes, or telephone lines, or, alternatively, on terms obliging the authority to find some other way round—to put its development on some other land.

I was very struck by one of the answers given by Mr. Qvist when he was being examined in Committee in another place. He was asked—it is reported on page 25, of day 2—it is Question 11: Your experience therefore is that there has never been any necessity in the past for these undertakers to operate any powers they may have? The answer: They have never done so. You say there has never been any necessity. I assume from the fact that they have never attempted compulsory powers that they have found alternative means. I think this reflects immense credit on the Conservators, their skill, their toughness in negotiation, and, if I may say so, also on the statutory undertakers who themselves recognise the value of preserving Epping Forest.

The fact of the matter is, however, that these pressures are increasing all the time. One threat in particular which now overhangs a substantial part of the northern end of Epping Forest is the Greater London Council's plan, or, it may be, a Ministry of Transport plan, for the D ring road. This is one of the orbital roads which will eventually be built round north London and which, if it were allowed to go through Epping Forest, would really strike a body blow at the whole concept of what the Conservators have been striving for over the last 70 or 80 years.

The great virtue of Epping Forest, particularly at the northern end, is that it provides a long, continuous stretch of natural woodland where one can walk for some miles without seeing any vestiges of civilisation. The battle, really, has been lost at the southern end, where the Conservators came into the picture too late to save the forest from being broken up into a number of separate pieces; but at the northern end there are great stretches of natural woodland and forest which are of quite unique value. and if a great dual carriageway road, whether of motorway standard or not, were to be driven through it, it would cut an immense swathe through the Forest and represent an encroachment on the Forest far more serious than the actual acreage of land which would be taken because it would represent the breaking up of the continuous stretch which provides so immensely valuable an amenity in the Forest and for those who use it.

In Epping Forest we are at the point of no return. We need to strengthen the hand of the Conservators; we need to give them the weapons to be able to fight, on equal terms, those who for what may be good reasons are threatening the survival of the Forest. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminister (Mr. John Smith) said in his speech, moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which I much enjoyed, Parliament gave the powers to the Conservators, and only Parliament should over-ride those powers. That is the purpose of Clause 27.

We have two examples at present going through the House where this is happening. I hope that I am not trespassing on anything that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) might want to say, but we have the reservoir and the road straightening of the North Circular at the Waterworks Corner in South Woodford, where Bills are being promoted, in the one case by the Metropolitan Water Board, and in the other by the Minister of Transport, as Private Bills. This is the right procedure.

In this case the City Corporation can argue the case through the Private Bill procedure, through the Committee upstairs, and the essential character of Epping Forest can be maintained. I said that the law is not clear on this. Many of the arguments that have taken place between the Conservators and the statutory corporations have arisen because of that. It is not clear how far the powers of these other corporations can over-ride the express limitations and provisions of the 1878 Act.

The purpose of Clause 27 is to put this beyond doubt. Only Parliament should be able to over-ride the powers which Parliament has given. The Conservators have given the clearest undertaking that the normal, small encroachments, for road widening, bus bays, and things of that sort, will continue exactly as hitherto. There need be no fear that the local authorities will have to promote a Private Bill every time that they want to build a bus bay. I am happy to say, as other hon. Members have, that this Bill and Clause 27 particularly, is supported by the London borough of Redbridge, in which part of the Forest lies.

The Town Clerk of the London Borough of Redbridge has written, saying: You will, of course, appreciate that my Council always supports the Corporation of London in its efforts to further the preservation of Epping Forest and this Bill contains such provision". If the local authority, with all its responsibilities, for highways and other services, is prepared to support the Bill, surely to goodness some of these great statutory authorities could take the same view. The aim of Clause 27 is to help the Conservators to resist major depredations.

There may be objections in detail, as there were in another place, to the precise wording of the Clause, but, as mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham, this is surely a matter for the Committee.

It is difficult to see what the electricity undertakings and other statutory undertakings have to complain about. After all, it is part of public policy to preserve amenity. I am putting it at its broadest and most general. One has elaborate provisions, under planning law, to ensure that private developers operate within that framework of the law and public policy. It is not asking too much that the statutory corporations should, so far as they conceivably can, operate within the same framework. From time to time it may put up their costs, but this is something which they should be expected to meet, as part of the overall policy of preserving the character of the rural environment of the Green Belt, of which Epping Forest forms a part. The main purpose of Clause 27 is to put it beyond doubt that Parliament is the only body which can override the powers of the 1878 Act.

London has many beautiful, historic monuments and wonderful parks. It has open heaths and other valuable assets. But there is not so much in the outer suburbs, and Epping Forest represents a unique survival from an earlier age of incalculable value to past and present generations of Londoners living far beyond the immediate neighbourhood of Epping Forest. Present generations are quite determined to ensure its preservation for future generations. Clause 27 would achieve that purpose. It is my profound hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens (Epping)

Much of what I intended to say has been said by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Despite the arguments which have been put forward about certain aspects of the Bill, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

I feel that the drafting of a code of legislation governing the construction of upper level walkways in the City is highly desirable. Having visited the area, I much admire the Barbican scheme, with its elevated walkways. I am certain that it will be possible, with give and take on both sides, to work out an Amendment in Committee which will give substantial satisfaction to the statutory undertakers and to the Corporation. I recognise the strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, but it would be a tragedy if the Bill were delayed because of this issue.

I have no wish to comment on increases in the number of judges at the Central Criminal Court or on most of the other general provisions in the Bill, but, like the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, I am particularly concerned about the Clauses which deal with Epping Forest, a large part of which is in my constituency.

As the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford pointed out, the connection of the Corporation of the City of London with Epping Forest as Conservators dates back to the last century. It is exercised through the Epping Forest Committee and the staff under the Superintendent of the forest. I am not the greatest admirer of the constitutional position of the Corporation in general, but I should like to place on record my great admiration of the excellent work done by the Epping Forest Committee in preserving the forest. I add my tribute to that paid by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford to the work of Mr. Qvist, the Superintendent. I have had to go to him on a number of occasions about problems brought to me by constituents. I have always found him not only most helpful, but most assiduous in his duties and in defending what I regard as a very important heritage.

The Corporation has used its funds and energies for the preservation of a great public amenity, because Epping Forest is a boon not merely to those who live on its fringes but to the population of the whole of north-east London. It is renowned throughout the country and wherever I mention that I am the Member of Parliament for Epping, people ask me about Epping Forest. It is a place of recreation for many residents of northeast London and it has been so for generations.

I was born in Bethnal Green, as were my parents and some of my grandparents and great-grandparents. For over a century, all of them have made use of Epping Forest as a place of recreation, and so, of course, have their contemporaries. There is a tremendous variety of facilities there, including boating, bathing and the Queen Elizabeth hunting lodge, where there is an admirable museum. There are fairgrounds and ancient camps and the forest is a haven for wild life and plants. It is vital that we should do all we can to preserve this great amenity for generations to come.

Modern developments, especially roads, inevitably encroach on forest land. If along the length of the A.11 we were to have a dual carriageway and if, in addition, the D-ring road which is envisaged at some future date were allowed to cut through the forest as another dual carriageway, eventually the forest would suffer the death of a thousand cuts. All that would remain would be a fringe of trees on the edge of all sorts of other development. In those circumstances, the powers which are being sought under Clause 27 are vital if the forest is to be preserved against disposal or compulsory acquisition in any form.

I feel this very strongly, particularly when so much countryside near London today is likely to be taken in for development. Hon. Members know how strongly I feel about the siting of a third London Airport at Stansted. If in the end that regrettably takes place—and I intend to oppose it as strongly as I can all the way along the line—it is even more necessary that Epping Forest should be preserved.

It was not, of course, merely the Corporation of the City of London which was responsible for the original preservation of the forest. It was the work of ordinary people—for example, Thomas Willingale, a poor labourer of Loughton, who insisted on maintaining his rights to lop trees in the forest in the face of an attempt by the lord of the manor to enclose the area. His sons went to gaol to preserve that right and gave the opportunity for other people, including the Buxton family, to come in and interest the corporation in the preservation of the forest. A great debt is owed by all present generations to those of the past. It is a debt which we can pay back to them only by playing our part in our day and preserving this heritage for the generations still to come.

I am sorry that there does not appear to be a Clause in the Bill which might deal with the use of the forest by graziers of cattle. The commoners originally had rights to turn their cattle out into the forest, a right which today is to some extent abused by graziers. This is one of the traditional practices in the forest which, I believe, has regrettably to be brought under control.

As I was coming along to the House today, I got involved in a traffic jam along the Epping New Road, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, as a result of a large herd of cattle wending its way across the road.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

Is the hon. Member aware that I was late for my very first adoption meeting because of cattle straying across the road, which held up the car in which I was travelling?

Mr. Newens

The hon. Gentleman will know very well to what I am referring then, and no doubt he will be very familiar with complaints from his constituents about cattle breaking into their gardens and eating their produce and prize flowers. I understand from people who deal with these matters that the cattle are capable of jumping over fences where they are incapable of breaking them down, and quite a number of constituents in my area feel very strongly about it. I should have hoped for some provision in the Bill for the conservators to deal with this nuisance to householders and traffic in this day and age.

Notwithstanding all these matters, I still welcome the Bill. It seems to me that the Corporation has done a magnificent job in many respects in connection with the forest, and I agree with the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and other hon. Gentlemen who have said that the Bill should go to Committee where any issues which arise, particularly those with the statutory undertakers, can be ironed out.

I believe that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to proceed. Certainly it has my fullest support and that of the vast majority, if not all, of my constituents.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

I rise briefly to bring to the Second Reading of this Bill my own support and that of the City of Liverpool.

If I may first deal with my own rather sentimental support of the Bill, I was born and brought up in a house situated on the edge of Epping Forest. At the age of 11, I counted myself one of the greatest experts on the byways of that great forest. I could take anyone to glades where wild deer still are to be found and where species of birds and kinds of trees which the average Londoner still dreams of stand in solitary state. My grandfather and one of my uncles were among the Conservators and verderers of the forest. My mother could have testified that I had fallen fully clothed into every pond in the forest by the time I was ten years of age and had brought most of the mud, which is clay, into our house by the age of 14. I should hate to see any of the amenities and special attractions of the forest destroyed, and, therefore, I have the greatest sentimental support for the Bill's Second Reading.

To come to more important matters, the Corporation of the City of Liverpool has written to me and to other hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies urging us to give full support to the Bill's Second Reading.

The chronology in this case seems to have gone wrong. Normally, what the great cities of the North-West think today, the City of London thinks tomorrow. In the present case, the procedure appears to have been reversed. But the City of Liverpool is always ready to take a kindly interest in good ideas which may emerge from the second biggest exporting port in the country.

In this case, it is the idea of the walkway, which the City of Liverpool intends to incorporate in the new planning developments for the centre of that City. In a recent letter from the Town Clerk, the City Corporation urges all Liverpool Members to make it clear that, just as the City of London thinks, apparently: It seems difficult to appreciate how any public utility undertaking can expect to have normal street powers in the walkways as envisaged in the Bill. At this point, with some effrontery, I take issue with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who speaks with such great authority in these matters. He said that he was worried about these powers because the Bill provides that some existing streets may be designated as walkways and, therefore, powers which electricity authorities have in those streets now may be taken away from them.

If the hon. Gentleman refers to Clause 19, he will see that when a walkway is at, or below, street level these powers are specifically reserved to the electricity undertakings. There is no intention that they should be deprived of them, and as existing streets taken over as walkways will, presumably, be at, or possibly below, street level. I believe that the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman are unfounded.

Mr. Palmer

I appreciate that, but as cities grow upwards and electric loadings go up with them, it is most important that it should be possible for the cables and other apparatus to follow them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes that point.

Mr. Fortescue

I was dealing with the narrow point about the taking over of existing streets, in respect of which I thought that the hon. Gentleman had taken a misleading point.

I support the Bill both in my personal capacity, and in my capacity as a representative of the City of Liverpool.

8.56 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

This is a private Bill, and I am not trying to bring the debate to an end, but I think that the House would wish to know the Government's attitude to some of the points which have been raised.

I agree with all that has been said about the value of Part II of the Bill. The walkways are a splendid experiment, and we shall all watch it with great interests. For different reasons, Part III of the Bill is very necessary. In everybody's interest it is important to have more judges in the criminal courts to stop delays in the carrying out of justice. This is one reason why it is important to get the Bill through if we can. I suppose one might say that if Epping Forest was freer, and if there were more Epping Forests, there would be no need for Part III of the Bill because there would not be the problems of delinquency and crime which we are to discuss again in a short while.

In answer to a question which I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), I would like to make it clear that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Power and the Postmaster-General reported in the first House against Part II, but they are not continuing their opposition here. Although they are not happy about it, they are not taking the matter any further.

The most difficult Clause in the Bill is Clause 27, and those two right hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, are reporting against it. It is not so much a question of its value for Epping Forest, which is in many ways unique, but the fact that it extends beyond Epping Forest, and that it might create an undesirable precedent for other less responsible and less reliable people who might have the power to delay necessary work which statutory authorities wish to carry out. My right hon. Friend and I are interested primarily in the preservation of amenity. This is one of our principal jobs, and therefore we do not feel quite as strongly about the Clause as do some other Departments which are anxious to remove it from the Bill.

These are all matters which ought to be looked at in Committee. It is clear from what has been said throughout the debate that there is no case for not giving the Bill a Second Reading. It is a very good Bill. The points at issue are complicated and technical. I therefore hope very much that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to Committee, where all these matters can be considered.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson (Walthamstow, East)

I am grateful for the opportunity to give my wholehearted support to the proposal to give the Bill a Second Reading. I want to pay my tribute to the value of Epping Forest for the inhabitants of north-east London. Much that I would have said has already been said and I shall not repeat it, but it is clear that the fact that things have been said before is not necessarily a bar in our proceedings.

This is a unique occasion, for I find myself for the first time, and probably the last time, in wholehearted support of everything uttered by my Member of Parliament. That state of affairs will not necessarily continue.

Since hon. Members have recounted their qualifications for intervening in the debate I want to give my qualifications. Firstly, the whole of my life has been lived on the edge of Epping Forest and I have always enjoyed its amenities. In my boyhood I paddled in the Hollow Ponds, although I am not sure whether I offended against any byelaw. In my youth and early manhood I played cricket and football on the forest and in my late middle age more staidly and sedately I go for walks in this beautiful forest. Secondly, my constituency has in it a beautiful part of Epping Forest.

The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) referred to the current road proposals. As an earnest of the obvious desire of the people living in the area of the Forest that it should not be interfered with there has been considerable opposition to this proposal. Although the case for the road may be argued on transport grounds there is great opposition. I am delighted by the efforts of the City Corporation without which much mischief and the loss of the land of Epping Forest would have occurred.

It has been interesting to hear various hon. Members with constituencies surrounding the Forest talking about the love and affection that their constituents have for it and their resolve that Epping Forest should not be interfered with without extremely good reason. It is very odd that although Members have been speaking from areas widely different in character and political views, the constituents in these areas are united in their pride in Epping Forest and in the history of its acquisition as a public open space. I imagine that most of them have proudly in their possession some replica of the acquisition and preservation of the forest.

The Act of 1878 is to them of almost equal importance as Magna Carta has in the history of England. They have a great desire not only to see the Forest continue in being but to fight any unnecessary steps which would spoil the Forest or encroach upon it. I sympathise with and understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodfnrd about the poplar trees on Woodford Green. We are sincerely grateful to the City Corporation for its efforts in maintaining the forest at no cost to the vast number of people who enjoy the amenities. For that reason, if for that reason alone, I lend my support to the proposal of the City Corporation—a purely altruistic proposal—to maintain the open space for our benefit.

Recently I had the great pleasure and privilege of accompanying the Epping Forest Committee on its tour of the forest. Quite apart from the enjoyable time spent in the Forest I was very impressed by the great care and attention which the Committee paid to the preservation of its amenities. I was also tremendously impressed by the fair and reasonable approach which it made to every request for the use of parts of Forest land. A request was never dismissed out of hand. Close consideration was given to it, and every endeavour was made to see whether it was possible to accommodate the applicant without detriment to the Forest. I am sure that that state of affairs will continue.

We must face the fact that the Forest is naturally a place at which statutory undertakers and local authorities will look if they have developments in mind. It is much easier and less expensive to acquire land for use in Epping Forest than to have to negotiate with private developers, and there is a temptation on statutory undertakers and local authorities to look first at Epping Forest rather than to look at Epping Forest as a last resort, if a resort at all.

I hope that I may be forgiven for referring to the Electricity Board and its attitude towards Epping Forest. I appreciate the problem which faces the Board and I appreciate that the Board would not normally seek to take Epping Forest land if it could be avoided, but I had an experience in my constituency in which the London Electricity Board applied to use some Epping Forest land for an electricity sub-station, quite ignoring the fact that immediately adjoining it was an adequate piece of waste land in private ownership which could equally well have been taken for development and that within 20 yards there were areas of land which had been developed or redeveloped only a matter of months earlier. Presumably the Board had an opportunity of putting a sub-station on that land, but it did not take it. For reasons which I do not know, the Board was more anxious to seek permission to use land in Epping Forest. It is a temptation against which we have to guard.

I appreciate the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who quite rightly pointed out that the Electricity Board and other undertakers have powers conferred on them by Act of Parliament to develop their undertakings. But that is an argument for the provision in Clause 27 whereby in cases of dispute, when both the statutory undertaker and the City Corporation have statutory powers, the determination of which statutory powers should supervene should be by Parliament. Parliament gave to the Epping Forest Conservators the obligation to see that the amenities of the Forest were maintained for the people of North and East London for ever, and Parliament ought to accept that where there is a clash of statutory responsibility, Parliament itself should determine where the answer best lies. For that reason I think it abundantly right that the provisions in Clause 27 should be enacted and I am not deterred from that view by the fact that my hon. Friend indicated that certain Amendments are desired.

I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking in the debate. Other points were raised in opposition to the Bill, but the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) is not here at the moment. He dealt at length with what he believed to be the arbitrary power which might vest in the City Corporation. I will not go into detail on the matter except to say that I thought that many of the remarks which he made were a slur on members of an honourable profession, the valuers employed by local authorities. As a local government officer of many years standing and as a solicitor who has been concerned in compulsory acquisition, I would say that his description of the process for negotiating a price was grossly exaggerated and highly coloured.

I join all my colleagues from the Forest constituencies in welcoming the Measure and expressing the hope that it will not only have a Second Reading but will go through Committee, and finally Third Reading, untouched.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I join the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in welcoming the Bill and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

This is a Second Reading of a private Bill, and to that extent it differs from the Second Reading of a public Bill. Normally on the Second Reading of a public Bill the House is considering whether it approves both the general principle and the expediency of the Bill. When considering a private Bill, as the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) was endeavouring to show, the House is considering approval of the general principle but the matter of expediency is left to the Committee. It is for the Promoters of the Bill to prove whether it is an expedient moment and method for the Bill and not necessarily for the House to consider that point. If the House approves the principle, then it should give the Bill a Second Reading—and who can fail to approve the principles embodied in the Bill?

To turn back to what was said in his opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), there are six points of importance in the Bill. He began with Clause 29, which broadens the field from which members of the Common Council may be elected, surely, a principle of democracy acceptable to the whole House. Next, he referred to Clause 21, the provisions for off-street parking in adjacent London boroughs. We all want to see more off-street parking wherever it can be economically maintained, and the proposal here is that it shall be arranged by agreement between the City and the adjoining boroughs. My hon. Friend turned next to Clause 25, the application of some funds arising from the cessation of the Coal Market to educational purposes, again a matter which we can wholeheartedly support in principle.

My hon. Friend's fourth point, on Clause 22, raises what is, perhaps, the easiest example of the difference between principle and expediency. If there are delays in the hearing of cases, the principle of increasing the number of judges must necessarily be approved. It is for the promoters to satisfy a Select Committee that it is expedient to appoint so many extra judges for so much extra time which they would occupy. Those are details for the Committee, but the principle must be approved.

Now, the protection of Epping Forest, Clause 27. This is an unusual Clause, providing that the common lands of Epping Forest and other areas shall not be alienated by the City Corporation but going further than that and providing that they shall not be compulsorily acquired from the City except under a further statute passed by Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said that this was to clarify the law and to strengthen the hands of the conservators.

The principle is accepted—the protection of this wonderful area of unique natural forest, what my hon. Friend called a lung of London—but whether the Clause represents the right way to do it is a question which must be left to the Committee. It is, as I say, an unusual Clause, which should have careful consideration in the Select Committee with a view to seeing whether there is a less drastic way to strengthen the hands of the conservators.

Finally, the question of walkways. Here is a new and exciting aspect of town development. Walkers will see the City and will enjoy the City as they have never been able to do before. They will enjoy it without anxiety on account of traffic, and this will be a great advance in road safety and in traffic regulation. No city which is planning for the future will plan now without walkways of this sort. An even more ambitious scheme is being planned for Liverpool, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) said. But few cities will be able to offer the amenities and historical interest which walkers will have when using walkways through the City of London.

The House is, naturally, disturbed by any suggestion that the public supply undertakers will be put in difficulty. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) put to the House a case which the Committee will have to consider in detail, especially if existing roadways were to be declared walkways so that the supply undertakers were prevented from maintaining their existing supply. However, I understand that this is not to happen, and the promoters intend to put forward Amendments to the Bill to that effect. This being so, I cannot see how, in practice, the supply undertakers can be given any rights over upper level walkways. If they have their rights as they exist at the moment in land, in the ground level roadways, these should be sufficient.

As I read the Bill as it stands, there is an element of selling town planning permission in it. It seems that the City could demand a price from the owners in order to provide and support the walkways, and demand it in the granting of planning permission. It has always been a recognised principle in all town plan- ning legislation that permission shall not not be sold, that no land owner shall be required to make a payment to get town planning permission. I hope that if I am reading the Bill correctly, and such a provision is at present in it, it will come out and that the City will be required to acquire rights of way and agreements for support in the normal way, in bargain with the owners concerned.

I cannot suppress my enthusiasm for the walkways system, and as a fringe Liverpool Member, I joint in welcoming the Bill for giving us a legislative code which we can apply to Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned my connection with the Pedestrians Association for Road Safety. I should think that hon. Members know of it through almost tedious repetition in the House of my advocacy for the pedestrian. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the scheme for walkways in the City of London, and to that extent enthusiastic about the Bill.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I have disagreed many times about the powers of various local authorities. We are both grateful to have found one Bill about which we have such a wide range of agreement. Perhaps hon. Members from Merseyside should not interfere in it, but, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) pointed out, on this occasion we were asked to intervene and support it.

The debate was becoming a meeting of "Royal Epping Forresters". The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) was delayed on his way to the House by Forest cattle—surely a breach of privilege. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) teetered on a seesaw with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—a fascinating thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston were falling in and out of the same pools, which is also a fascinating exercise.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), has said some rather controversial things, departed, and, unfortunately, not returned. He said that if anyone came up to him and claimed that in his own experience he had found valuation officers fair to individuals and corporations he would be delighted to pin on him a gold medal for gullibility or naivety. If it is solid gold, may I put on record my personal experience. Both in local government and outside I have found local valuation officers very fair within their terms of reference. In my experience, if there is any erring it is on the side of individuals as against the authorities. I deplore what sometimes becomes almost a personal campaign against the valuation officers, instead of standards, in the terms of the hon. Member for Ilford, North.

Strange alliances are formed in the House sometimes. While my general belief is that the powers of the City of London, like those of the Whips, have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished, on this occasion the City of London has the support of the City of Liverpool. That is not because the City of Liverpool thought of something after the City of London. We thought of it first, but the City of London got its Bill in first. After all, we have had our fair share of Bills.

There are 32 pages of detailed proposals in the Bill, most of them eminently reasonable. I should like to draw attention to, and perhaps declare an interest in, Clause 25, under which the Coal Market Fund, which has a nice 19th-century flavour, a ring of realism and truth, and an honest title, is to be replaced by something called the "City Educational Trust Fund". If we are to get the Bill through the House, let there be a better title than this. Let it be perhaps "Better terms, and the proceeds will be used for the advancement of education in science and technology, business management and commerce by the promotion of research, study, teaching and training in such subjects." Coal Market Act‡ Let us have something related to fuel technology and fuel research if it can be managed.

The main interest of the City of Liverpool is in regard to the city walkways. The City of Liverpool has a great interest in the proposals. So, we should place on record, has the Merseyside and North- West Electricity Board. There are points of very real interest and concern that we share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, but, as he has accepted, these can well be sorted out in Committee and we shall watch those proceedings with interest.

My hon. Friend made the point that it would have been better if the proposals had come forward as general powers from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I would not disagree with that, except that I do not think he would have wanted to criticise that Ministry too much at this time. It has introduced over the last three years some very heavy, full and essential measures of legislation. While we would welcome general powers at a later stage, at this time we need these powers to get on with our development, because the City of Liverpool would prefer a precedent established so that later on we can quote it for our purpose.

The debate has been useful. There is no doubt about the intention of the House, and I am happy to give the Bill my suport.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. John Smith

As I am the only Member which this particular City—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak again only by leave of the House. He must ask for that leave.

Mr. Smith

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that as I am the only Member which this particular City—unlike Liverpool—has, I wonder if I might have the leave of the House to speak again briefly to comment on one or two of the points raised?

First, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) for not pressing the matter to a Division. I think that is in accordance with the spirit of Second Reading debates on Private Bills. He said that I do not know much about electricity, and indeed I fear I am somewhat in the position of Lord Finchley in the poem in regard to that.

In particular, the hon. Member mentioned five points on which I should like to comment. He said that it was important that electricity undertakers should have access to premises. Of course that is important, but the City believes that they already have adequate powers of this sort. For example, in tall buildings the electricity does in fact always arrive at the top into however many occupations the building may be divided.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that these proposals do not involve cables carrying thousands and thousands of volts: but he also said that as cities go up, loads go up. I think that we should bear in mind that one of the petitioners against the Bill is the Central Electricity Generating Board. I wonder what is the lowest voltage in which it deals. There is a passage in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Lords, where the manager of the Central Electricity Generating Board says: With our system there is the minimum voltage, over that 11,000 volts, over that 22,000, 33,000 or 66,000 volts, and when you get to the major transmission you go up to 400.000 volts. It is necessary at all these levels, particularly the lower levels of 33,000 volts and below …". I feel that if 33,000 volts and below is considered a lower level we are dealing in quite large voltages. At the end of the same piece of evidence it was stated: It is the loss of the through routes which is going to be as big a problem as the individual service cables into the premises The point about existing streets being turned into walkways so that, in due course, undertakers lose their rights has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue). I understand that the undertakers will in fact keep their rights in such streets and this Bill in itself does not affect those rights. He mentioned that a private Bill should not override public legislation. I feel that the Bill does not override anything but simply says that this new object, a walkway, is not a street.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that other undertakers besides electricity undertakers were uneasy, and this really reinforces our point that we should be careful about giving rights over these walkways because, whereas an electricity cable weighs perhaps 20 lb. a yard, the weight of water or gas pipes can weigh immeasurably more, even up to half a ton a yard for a pipe of large diameter. But all these, as he said, are technical points, and I think that they reinforce the need for the Bill to go into Committee.

The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) told us that he was held up by cattle in Epping Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) told how cattle nearly deprived us of his assistance here by keeping him from his adoption meeting. On behalf of the City, I would point out that the Corporation promoted a Bill in 1963, one of the objectives of which was to end the grazing of cattle in Epping Forest. But despite the advocacy of the present Lord Chancellor before the House of Commons Committee, the provisions relating to cattle were disallowed by the Committee. Personally, I have an open mind on that subject. I am rather in favour of delaying the hon. Member for Epping occasionally.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) raised the question of compensation and I am grateful that he did so because I made a mistake. I said that when the City gave planning permission it would insist on support being put in for the walkway, and on the walkway becoming a right of way; and that no compensation would be payable. In fact, no compensation will he payable for the right of way, but it will be payable for such additional structural work as is necessary to support the walkway.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North was the only one who allowed politics to raise its head in the debate. He said that the City of London Corporation was 100 per cent. Conservative. It is, of course, 100 per cent. nonpolitical. [Laughter] The hon. Gentleman worked there and he should know. I usually agree with the hon. Gentleman, particularly about motor cars, although not about politics, and if ever there is a political convulsion in West Ham, North I hope that he will come back to the City of London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) raised the question of valuation. I shall not comment on what he said about compulsory purchase, but he mentioned the City as a local authority which does not refer such matters to the district valuer. In the City, negotiations over compulsory acquisition are conducted by the City Surveyor and he does not regard it as his duty to obtain the cheapest price in all cases.

Most owners of City property are well represented and, as has been pointed out, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal. It involves delay but, if there is delay, owners of property in the City are better able to stand up to it than the owners of property elsewhere. There have only been to my knowledge two cases in the last ten years which have had to be referred to the Lands Tribunal and in both the price finally agreed was very close to the City Surveyor's price and quite a long way from the price insisted upon and put forward by the person whose property was to be acquired.

The Minister mentioned the Postmaster-General. I think I should say that the City has agreed to introduce Amendments which have been seen and accepted by the Postmaster-General. I am also grateful to the Minister for his inclination—it does not seem much more than an inclination—to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee.

This has been quite a suitable and agreeable end of term debate. Indeed, it is rather a pity that we cannot have a Division so that we can all squeeze for once into the same Lobby. On behalf of the City of London, which I have the honour to represent, may I thank the House for the way in which it has treated this Bill and express the hope that we will now be able to give it its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Ordered, That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered, That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session:

Ordered, That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed, and shall be so recorded in the Journal of this House;

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and all notices of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard given in the present Session, within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Referees relating to such notices, shall be held applicable in the next Session;

Ordered, That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited within the present Session;

Ordered, That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceeding on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered, That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.