HIGHWAYS BILL

HC Deb 08 December 1970 vol 808 cc272-328

Order for Second Reading read.

4.38 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page)

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

As the Long Title shows, this is a Bill to make further provision with respect to highways, streets and bridges in England and Wales. Highway law was consolidated in the Highways Act, 1959, and I recollect that at that time those who were in the House hoped that that Act would be, as it were, the launching pad for a rocket of reform of highway law. In fact, one must now admit that in the decade which has followed there has been no such blast-off. There had been a few small but useful fireworks, in particular those ignited by Members in Private Members' Bills.

Sir William Aitken, then the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, promoted and piloted through the House the Bill which became Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961, what one might call the nonfeasance Act, which made it possible for the citizen to recover damages from the highway authority for injury received as a result of failure to keep a street in repair, although the Bill also did many other useful things. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) promoted and piloted through the House the Bill which became the Highways (Amendment) Act, 1965, what one might call the snow clearance Act. In addition, there were some highway law reforms in Government Bills which became the Local Government Act, 1966, the Countryside Act, 1968, and the Transport Act, 1968.

Having referred to these legislative efforts as perhaps small but useful fireworks, I am no doubt vulnerable to the accusation that this Bill may be a damp squib, but I am confident that it is nothing of the sort. I cannot claim that it is a rocket of reform, but I do claim that it does some very useful and necessary things in tidying up some of the outdated highway law. In presenting the Bill, I should perhaps apologise to a previous eminent hon. Member of this House, Sir Alan Herbert, for depriving him of some perfect material. Listen, for example, to this. A highway authority can acquire land for laying a drain. It can lay a drain, but in law it has no power to allow water to enter that drain. If water has entered that drain, it has no legal power to let the water out at the other end. Clause 21 endeavours to put that right.

A local authority can legally use a motor roller or a scraper on a footpath or bridleway, that is to say, an appliance for the maintenance of the footpath or bridleway, but it cannot legally use a mechanical digger for a drain or a truck to carry kerbstones, that is to say, a vehicle to carry out improvements to the footpath or bridleway. Clause 24 tries to put that right.

Let me tell those who have been defeated by the unfortunate but necessarily technical drafting of the Bill before they have got beyond Clause 1, of the fantastic anomaly that the Clause will remove. A highway authority for a classified road can construct that classified road or improve an existing classified road, but it cannot legally carry out any alterations to the side roads entering that new classified road, such as diverting, raising, lowering or stopping up the side roads, which may be necessitated by the work on the classified road. There again the Bill tries to put right that anomaly.

The Bill deals with much more serious matters than that. Anyone embarking upon even a modest measure of highway reform would wish to achieve five objects. First, to make the highways safer; secondly, to build the highways quicker; thirdly, to keep the highways better; fourthly, to make people's participation in the planning of highways simpler; and, fifthly, to make compensation for adjoining owners fair. I claim that the Bill makes a contribution to each one of those five objectives. May I then use them as headings to my comments on the Bill.

Going back to the first, to make the highways safer, Clause 18 improves the law relating to pedestrian guardrails and barriers and Clause 19 improves the law relating to footbridges over highways. Both are useful safety measures in highway law. Then there is Part II of the Bill. Clauses 25 to 36 are headed "Lawful and unlawful interference with highways and streets", and they give the highway authority control over dangerously obstructive kerbside builders' skips that have become more frequent on the roads. This part of the Bill deals with animals straying on the road, the fencing of adjacent dangerous land, the erection of retaining walls and the laying down of motorcar entrances across verges and footpaths, all of which are useful safety measures. There are some important safety provisions in Clauses 30, 31 and 32 relating to building operations in or near a street, the execution of works in a street and the construction of bridges over streets. In the past few years there have been some tragic accidents through building operations near and in streets, resulting from the collapse of cranes, scaffolding, hoardings and so on, which have fallen on to innocent passersby. These Clauses seek to improve the law in this vital aspect of the safety of the road user.

I turn to the second heading, to build the highways quicker. Clauses 14 to 17 achieve this. They do so without depriving the individual of an effective way of protecting his rights and having his case heard. May I remind the House of the preliminary steps and the statutory procedures which are adopted in any substantial road building scheme.

First, many lines for the road are considered and they are discussed in confidence with the local authorities and, perhaps, the landowners concerned. They are not at that stage published for fear of unnecessarily blighting the property on several routes which are being considered, all but one of which will eventually be rejected. The route that is chosen is published as the proposed route but is still open to discussion.

The Government intend to introduce more extensive publicity for highway proposals when a line of road has been chosen and is put forward as the Government's proposal. At that stage we intend in future that there should be individual notification to occupiers of land and property within a broad band around the scheme; that there should be some improvement in the Press publicity and in the sketch plans of the scheme; that posters should supplement the formal public notice and that public meetings should be held more often at the time of publication of the proposals. These are matters which do not need statutory provision but will be done administratively. The procedure required to be embodied in a Statute is that relating to orders which give a new road its legitimate birth. The three types of orders involved are the line order setting out where the road will be, the side road order and the compulsory purchase order.

In streamlining this procedure, we have in the Bill been concerned to guard against undue encroachment on private rights and against the curtailment of public protest. We want to keep the rights of the private individual and of amenity societies to put forward their cases at proper inquiries, but the fact is that the present procedure is much too inflexible. This is to nobody's benefit. For example, at present there is a fixed period of three months in which objections must be launched. Clause 14(1) of the Bill seeks to replace that three months fixed period by a minimum of six weeks. I stress the fact that the six weeks is a minimum period. The object is that the period should be tailored to fit the nature and size of the scheme. Three months may be too short in some cases and in many others it may be unnecessarily long. If we set a period of six weeks as a minimum, then six weeks or six months may be chosen for the particular scheme in hand. Six weeks is a period that is now common to housing law, planning law and to the law relating to roads in Scotland. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary about that period and it allows flexibility in dealing with schemes.

Another aspect of the present inflexibility of the law is that if significant changes in a scheme are thought to be desirable as a result of objections properly brought forward, then the scheme may have to be scrapped. If that occurs, all that has been done is thrown away and the whole matter must begin again at square one, involving a delay of perhaps six or 12 months. The two proposals in the Bill which seek to improve that situation are first a procedure for notifying persons likely to be affected by a proposed change and giving them the opportunity to make representations. That is dealt with in Clause 15(2). Secondly, there is a power to make an order or scheme in part, so that where part of a scheme is relatively uncontroversial that part can be proceeded with while the controversial part is examined. In that way, if any change is desired to be made after objections have come forward, we do not have to go back to square one.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

On the question of allowing part of a scheme to proceed, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this procedure might pre-empt the decision on the other part on which there is major objection?

Mr. Page

Yes, this procedure should be used with discretion. There are many cases in which perhaps a considerable length of road is not in dispute at all but has originally been included in one order. It may be only a small part of a road, involving perhaps a by-pass to a town or village, that is in dispute. It is disappointing that under the present law we have to go back to the beginning and make a new order for the whole road. We seek to provide now, by Clauses 15(1) and 48(1) that where we are satisfied that there is a length of road on which there is no dispute at all, we can go ahead with an order on that part and leave the controversial part to be further discussed.

A further point is that the present procedures permit no deviations at all once the centre line of a road has been fixed. Where the three types of order are taken consecutively, detailed design work will not have been completed when the centre line is fixed by the first line order. As the scheme is further discussed, hardship may be obviated by deviating slightly to avoid a person's house or garden or some affected property. In other words, although everybody wants the deviation, it cannot be done without going back to square one. Clause 17(2) would permit deviations to be specified in a line order. In other words, the first order would say, "You may deviate so far from the centre line", a figure representing the deviation would appear in the order and the final design of the road could be fitted in to meet any cases of hardship that might arise if the original line were too firmly adhered to.

I have spoken of the three kinds of orders and have dealt with them as being taken consecutively. The more usual, and perhaps best, course is for the three orders to be taken concurrently at the same inquiries. Unfortunately, the present procedure for dealing with matters concurrently is quite inadequate. The proposals in the Bill provide for schemes and orders to be dealt with concurrently. This is dealt with by Clauses 14(6) and 47(1) and (2). The present position is that even if there is one inquiry for all three orders which have been processed concurrently in that way, then a line order cannot be made at the same time. If they are processed together they are decided together, but side road orders and compulsory purchase orders can be made only after the line order has been made and brought into effect by a notice in the London Gazette and in local newspapers. This delay in procedure is of no advantage to anyone. It is "dead time" in the production of a scheme. The proposal to allow orders to be made concurrently will save up to two months in the procedure in each case without any loss of private rights.

Throughout the procedure I am anxious to give genuine objectors, such as individual landowners and amenity societies, full scope to make their case, but not false scope to filibuster or to delay the proceedings just for the sake of delay. Much time is at present lost and the benefits of a new road scheme may be delayed because the law does not require objectors to act in a reasonable, businesslike manner.

There are three ways in which the Bill seeks to overcome this difficulty without removing anything other than the objector's right to delay a scheme deliberately or perhaps carelessly. They are as follows. First, the power to require an objector to state grounds of an objection within the objection period I mentioned. If an objector does not give grounds for his objection it is difficult to deal with the objection, or even to determine whether there should be an inquiry at all. Frequently much delay occurs because an objector does not exactly specify his objection.

Secondly, there should be power to disregard objections which relate to decisions taken at an earlier stage following completion of the statutory procedure for that stage. Much time is at present wasted when, for example, objectors to compulsory purchase orders seek to rehearse objections taken previously at the line order stage or the side road order stage. If our proposals are accepted, objectors will still be able to argue that roads should be built slightly differently or deviate a little, but they will not be allowed to go back over the broad principles of the scheme which have been settled in connection with an earlier order.

My third point is that there will be a power to require objectors to give notice before an inquiry of alternative routes which they intend to propose at the inquiry. Too often an objector turns up at an inquiry with an alternative route which it has not been possible for the Ministry or any person concerned in the inquiry to study. The result is an adjournment of the inquiry and a loss of time. Those are the main provisions over streamlining the procedure which leads up to the commencement of the construction of the road.

I come to my third heading: to keep highways better. I take one example of this, although there are a number throughout the Bill. Clauses 54 and 56 the powers of statutory undertakers to pull up roads. It is probably not generally known, for example, that before the termination of his employment with the Post Office, Lord Hall could have ordered the ripping up of the whole of the M1.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

A pity he did not.

Mr. Page

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) says it is a pity that he did not. But I wanted to exaggerate the position in that way to show that there is no control which highway authorities, and even the Government, have over the Post Office at present to rip up trunk roads or even motorways. The Bill seeks to put that right. There are a number of other provisions, some of which I have already mentioned under the heading of safety, which will help maintain the roads better.

My fourth point is about making simpler the participation of people in the planning of the highways. I have already touched upon this under other headings, especially in the reforms of procedure. Another aspect of this is that cooperation between the authority whose duty it is to carry out works for the benefit of the community, in this case to construct roads, and the individual who is called upon to sacrifice his property, rights or amenities community.

In many respects the Bill provides a code or even a modest charter for that co-operation between the authority and the individual, which has not previously existed in many spheres with which the Bill deals. For example, Clauses 2 to 9 contain a new code of rights and duties between the authority and the individual when for the public good the individual is required to give up an entrance to his property from the street. Those Clauses cover the legitimate interests of frontagers by the provisions for compensation and the requirement that an order that the access to the street be closed should not be made or confirmed unless the authority is satisfied that access to the premises is not reasonably required or that another reasonably convenient access is available or will be provided by the authority.

Although there is a background of compulsion in that the authority can close that access compulsorily, that is always necessary where public works are to be executed. I claim that those Clauses are a framework for speedy, amicable agreement between the highway authority and the private individual. The same remarks apply to Part III of the Bill, which deals with the acquisition of land and interests in land for highway purposes. Clauses 37 and 38 consolidate acquisition rights. Clause 39 gives some welcome rights to the authority, and to the individual land owner, to acquire property in advance of requirements. That perhaps may seem a little formidable, but in my experience it is usually just what the owners of property want. Once it is known that a road is contemplated, the values of property in the neighbourhood drop. The blight provisions may not apply at that stage. In the present state of the law, the owner may not be able to serve a purchase notice, but yet he wants to be relieved of the property as quickly as possible. Clause 39 will be welcomed both by authorities and individual owners.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

This is an important point. Every hon. Member must have had some constituent who has been caught by this one. What right has the individual to force the authority to purchase a house ahead of requirement? Has he definite rights, or is this just a discretionary power?

Mr. Page

This does not alter the present blight provisions, the right to serve a purchase notice. However, it gives the highway authority greater power to acquire before requirement. If the highway authority has that power, at least the land owner can go to the authority and ask it to exercise the power. It may be that one ought to apply some purchase notice procedure to this, but we can discuss that at a later stage.

Mr. Frederick Motley (Sheffield, Park)

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of making the compulsory purchase aspect of the blight provisions bite a little earlier? It is rather a long way down the chain before the right to have one's property acquired is vested in the property owner.

Mr. Page

Yes, I have given some thought to that possibility. We shall see whether we can discuss that further at a later stage in the Bill. At the moment, there is an increase in the power of the highway authority to acquire at a much earlier stage than under the present law. Following that, there is a useful set of provisions contained in Clauses 40 to 43. The House will be familiar with Clauses in Private Bills giving authorities the right to acquire not the land itself but, where appropriate, rights over the land. This is frequently convenient to both parties, for the laying of pipes, the making of water courses, laying cables, putting in supports and so on.

It has been necessary in the Bill to apply the present code of compensation and the blight provisions under which an authority can be forced to purchase the acquisition of rights. I regret that this makes for some rather long Schedules to the Bill, but it will be of assistance to hon. and right hon. Members in studying the Bill to have what are commonly known as Keeling schedules which set out in full the law as it will be when amended. But it is necessary to apply the code of compensation and the blight provisions to the new code of acquisition of rights over land in place of acquiring the land itself. Here we have another code of co-operation between the authority and the individual, this time in connection with the granting of rights over property rather than the disposal of the property.

That leads me to my fifth and last point which is designed to make compensation for adjoining owners fairer. As the House will know, this subject arises acutely when one has an elevated motorway passing within a few feet of a bedroom window. That is the exaggerated example, perhaps, but it happens in many other cases with the construction of motorways and with the construction of ordinary roads that the amenities of an adjoining property are taken away sometimes without any of the property being taken for the purpose of the works. If a small part of an adjoining property is taken, the normal compensation code applies. If no part of the property is taken, the value of the property may be very much reduced but no compensation is payable.

I wish that I could say that we have introduced into the Bill a new code of compensation to compensate people thus injured. But this type of injury applies not only to the construction of roads but to many different kinds of public works. I give the House the assurance that we are carrying out a very comprehensive review of the compensation code—

Mr. Bob Brown

So did we.

Mr. Page

The hon. Gentleman says, "So did we". I have benefited from the review carried out by the previous Administration. I have tried to add to it, I hope constructively. But it is a complex problem and one which raises far-reaching financial implications. We hope, though, to be able to put the results of the review before the House in the not too distant future. But it was not appropriate to include it in this Bill since we are only dealing with roads and highways, whereas that compensation code must deal with public works far more extensively.

What we have done in the Bill is to make sure that, where any new rights of acquisition are given to a highway authority or any new powers over property such as the closing of a private access to a highway or the acquisition of rights instead of the acquisition of land, the present compensation code is carefully applied to the acquisition of those rights or the exercise of those powers which may cause injury or damage to the individual or his property.

In the Clauses that I have already mentioned as dealing with the code of cooperation between the authority and the individual, there are provisions for compensation in those cases. One hopes normally that the compensation will be agreed between the parties. But there must be the background of compulsory acquisition and an appeal by the individual owner to have his compensation settled by the Lands Tribunal.

I can only express disappointment that we have been unable to put before the House a complete revision of the compensation code in this Bill. But we have ensured that all new rights given to public bodies in the Bill carry with them the consequent duty to pay proper compensation, as the law stands at present, to those from whom rights have been acquired.

This is a Bill in respect of which I have had to go through the points in some detail. It is a piecemeal Bill. I have not attempted to cover every detail, and I am sure that the House would not wish me to do so. No doubt there is much that can be done to improve the Bill in Committee, and I am sure that we shall have the co-operation of the Opposition in that, because I do not claim the full parentage of the Bill. It started before the days of the present Government.

We are very happy to put it before the House now in, we hope, a good form which will help speed up the construction of roads and, at the same time, give protection to the individual owner who is affected and to those in the amenity societies who wish to put before the Government their points of view about maintaining the countryside.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I am sure that the House and a wide body of opinion outside are indebted to the Minister for explaining the provisions of the Bill with his usual clarity and care, and for making a very strong case for a Measure of this kind. I make it immediately clear that the Opposition welcomes it. It is a sensible Measure, which perhaps we do not get often enough these days, and, as the House knows, we on this side never oppose legislation for the sake of opposition. When we have a sensible Bill, we are happy to give it our support.

The Minister's case is that we, in the 1970s, are operating the very complex procedures of extending our road system with legislation which is still basically that of the 1930s, and, judging by the illustration that the Minister gave us of drainage legislation, probably many years earlier.

While we have the principal Act, as it is called in the present Bill, that Act of 1959 was largely a consolidation Measure and did not make a point of trying to bring our highways legislation up to date. I think that we can assure the Minister that this is a non-controversial Measure in principle, though no doubt we shall have arguments in Committee on some of the detailed provisions. What I cannot promise is that it will be totally uncontroversial in some quarters outside.

It is surprising that the Bill has received so little publicity. Perhaps that illustrates the view which I have held for a long time that, if one wants to be sure of getting something done with the minimum of publicity, one should do it in a Bill or statement on the Floor of the House. One rarely makes the front page if one acts in what should be the full glare of public opinion. A leak of what may be coming along is more likely to get a disproportionate amount of publicity.

As the Minister said, the Bill covers a wide range of very detailed provisions that we shall need to look at in Committee, though I am sure that it was right for the Minister to go through them with some care. However, today we shall be more concerned with the main reason for the legislation rather than the provisions which will be considered at a later stage.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Bill is sufficiently wide to enable us to anticipate problems which will arise in the next decade? We know how difficult it is to get parliamentary time for complicated legislation of this kind, and we do not want to overlook any problem which is just beginning to arise. I have in mind the power of local authorities to designate priority routes for public transport, which is becoming increasingly important in many of our cities as one way of helping public transport in its difficulties. Another increasingly important issue concerns the powers of local authorities to control parking, especially in cases where local people decide to have pedestrian precincts in the centres of cities and towns. Unless traffic is prohibited in some of our towns, many historic buildings will suffer greatly. As I say, we must ask ourselves whether we do not need to anticipate some of these points in a Measure of this kind.

The Minister spoke about the five objects which he had in mind in presenting the Bill. I am sure that in broad terms they commend themselves to all hon. Members. I found in this sphere, as so often happens in others, that there is no problem getting people to agree with the principle or the objective. The problem always seems to arise in their interpretation of what the objective should be.

We all agree that we need more roads. Equally, we agree that, as far as possible, roads should be built with the minimum disturbance to amenity, property, and the rest. The great problem is that when it comes to a decision subjective elements are inevitably involved.

It seems to me that in looking at the Bill we have to bear in mind three points. First, will it preserve the rights not merely of the individual whose property may be affected but of those concerned with amenity or other factors to have their cases properly ventilated with every opportunity of presenting them in the most powerful way?

Secondly, we should be concerned that where, for the public good, people's property or rights are taken away or interfered with, there should be adequate compensation.

Thirdly, we should consider the kind of road planning programme which we shall have, because, on the one hand, this is the justification for this kind of legislation and, on the other hand, the volume of the projected programme will underline the urgency or otherwise of getting a Bill like this on the Statute Book.

I do not think that any hon. Member will disagree with the principle enunciated by the Minister, to which I subscribe, that the individual must have the right to present his case in the best possible way. On the other hand, I am not sure that the changes in procedure proposed by the Bill will commend themselves with universal enthusiasm to all who are interested in roads. Questions will be raised because, whereas it seems silly to have three or four bites at the cherry, there are those around who like that exercise.

I was staggered when I was Minister to find that one had to go through the same exercise so many times. First, there is the line, then the side roads, and then the compulsory purchase provisions. If a new alternative cropped up in the course of the public inquiry system and there was to be any deviation, one had to go bask to square one and start all over again. Then those who had been quiet when the route which they preferred was going through, realising that another route might be preferred, would form a new lobby, and a new set of opponents seemed to be created.

I am sure that the Minister will agree, with his short experience, that a Minister can always be sure that no one will think that he is right in any decision which he takes. Certainly, as I had to make clear in the Press in the context of one of these arguments, I never found deputations waiting to tell the Minister that he had made the right decision. Ministers rarely get letters saying that they have made the right decision in this context. On the other hand, in this sphere, as no doubt in others, those opposed to what is suggested are naturally and properly extremely vocal in putting their points of view.

I was particularly glad that, in the context of rightly simplifying the procedures, the Minister indicated his intention, through administrative procedures, to give more publicity to these matters. This is essential. A six-weeks period is long enough as the minimum for notice of objection, provided that the intention is to have a line for a road made widely known in the area concerned so that not only the owners of land but everyone likely to be affected knows in the six weeks that this is being done.

I was particularly interested to see that where a number of alternative routes are explored and considerable work is done before deciding on the ultimate line put forward by the Minister for public inquiry, the information that has been gathered in the survey can be made available to objectors so that they may be spared the cost of perhaps going over the same ground. In this way it is hoped that the public will feel that their participation is more real. It is always difficult for those who lack the expert knowledge available to the Minister and to the local authorities to prepare their cases for an inquiry unless they have substantial funds. Sometimes a spontaneous movement subscribes money for the engaging of experts, counsel, and the rest. But it is right that maximum help should be given to people to present their cases, particularly when the work has already been done by the local authority or by the Department.

No matter what we do we shall always have posed the fundamental problem that most people are in favour of roads, but not in the particular locality in which they live or in which they are accustomed to spending holidays or weekends.

I have noticed that most people who attend public inquiries to object to the building of roads usually travel by motorcar and that most of them own cars. Indeed, the idea that is sometimes put abroad is that there are the motorists, on the one hand, and, on the other, the people who believe in amenities. This is obviously nonsense, because we get extreme characters on both sides of such an argument. But most people who use motorcars are at the same time worried about some of the amenity matters about which various societies also worry.

A serious dilemma, to which, candidly, I do not know the answer, is how we get the maximum publicity and forward looking in road planning or, indeed, any other planning development without attracting blight. As a Minister, I was often asked: why has not the Ministry or the local authority, which is bound to look at several alternative possibilities of building a road in a particular area, published all these proposals so that, at the public inquiry, people could, as it were, have a local parliament on which they thought was the most suitable in their circumstances?

The Minister has mentioned, and I want to stress, the great problem created not merely by proposed new roads being published, but by the sight of a surveyor looking at particular fields. This often sends a rumour round the locality and it is difficult for people who want to sell their property in the intervening period to do so. That was why I asked the Minister to look particularly at the problem of blight to see whether it was possible at an earlier stage than the final stage, which is necessary now, to give notice to the owners of property, because only in a limited sense can the owners of property require the Minister to purchase their property. While I may have less objection than the Minister to the extension of public ownership by acquiring property in this way, obviously there is bound to be a limit to the number of houses, particularly in urban areas, which the Minister can acquire because of alternative proposals about the provision of new roads.

Another aspect of blight, about which the Minister spoke, is that unless some part of a person's property is taken he cannot be compensated for injurious affection, noise, pollution and damage causing loss of value to his property as a result of a motorway or other form of public works construction.

A great nuisance is often suffered by people who, at the end of the day, are affected not so much by the construction of a road, as from the fact that their property is near the road used by construction vehicles. Over several years they may have to put up with a great deal of nuisance, but I do not think that there is any power for compensation to be paid to them. This is something that we ought to consider. It is a complex problem, and I understand the Minister's reluctance to take the House into his confidence today about the line that may be taken to tackle the problem, but I put it to the House that there would have been a great roar from the benches opposite if, when we were the Government, we had brought in a Bill of this kind without making some provision for dealing with injurious affection and blight. These are real problems, and they must be tackled. I was conscious of the difficulty of dealing with them for the short time when I was Minister but they must, nevertheless, be dealt with.

It is important to get from the Government an assurance on one principle on which I hope we can agree. It is that if additional public expenditure is required to compensate people who suffer injurious affection, that will not be used as a reason for reducing the size of the road programme. If £X millions are in- volved in a new claim for compensation, that is a matter which the House will have to deal with, but it should not be used as a reason for reducing the public expenditure to which we are committed for the building of roads. I think that it would be right to get from the Government tonight a statement, if only in very general terms, about their intention with regard to the road programme generally. The extent of the road building programme is obviously relevant to the kind of legislation that we need to ensure the speedy and efficient implementation of it.

One of the last things that I was privileged to do as a Minister was to present to the House a roads strategy which projected a substantial increase in the amount of public funds to be devoted to the building of roads. This was done last May. It was a large programme, and many people laughed when I said that it would take a minimum of 15 years to carry out, and that if economic circumstances were not as favourable as one would like, it would take perhaps 20 years to reach the point where we had overcome congestion and got round to having a road system of the kind that we needed on amenity, convenience and economic grounds.

On looking at some of the roads proposals, I was staggered to discover the economic loss that we suffer every day because of congestion, injuries, and so on. I was staggered to find that many of the priority schemes had a return of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. This is a common figure in assessing priorities, which means that in economic terms we pay for the road two or three years after it is completed. I therefore consider that it would be wrong to retreat from the kind of programme that I put to the House last May. In fact, I should welcome the possibility of its being extended so that we can overcome the arrears and get the road system that we need in less than the 15 years which, to me and my advisers, seemed to be the minimum.

I pay tribute to the tremendous amount of work done by the officials in the old Ministry of Transport, and I should like to resist the criticism that one hears sometimes from bodies outside that if only the road programme were in hands other than those of civil servants, somehow or other a magic wand could be waved and we could complete the programme twice as quickly, at half the cost. I hope that in the short time they have been in office hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that the problem is a little more complex than that.

Quite apart from the size of the road programme, it is essential to try to plan ahead. Too often in the past problems have resulted from what I call piecemeal development. In one celebrated case the problem arose because a motorway had gone so far and then stopped. The objective was known, but the problem was how to get from X to Y. It might have been possible to adopt a different line if we had started at the beginning and planned the whole line from that stage. That is something that I should like to encourage.

I think we have to make it clear that if, when we are looking 15 or 20 years ahead, we start to publish plans in detail well in advance of when the funds will be available to implement them, we run right into the blight problem about which the Minister spoke. When I tried to explain this to the House I was scoffed at by the Opposition because I was not there and then willing to publish a plan which would show all the roads in the scheme. It is difficult to plan ahead unless we do some real hard thinking about how to overcome the blight problem, but I think that many of our problems arise from the fact that we tend to do the easy bit first.

We tend to build motorways between towns, without ensuring that the links into the towns at each end are ready. This is so even with the M.1. It has been in use for many years, but the links into central London have not been completed. We tend to do the easy bits first, without deciding whether we are to have a dual carriageway, or whether a certain proportion of the road is to be dual carriageway. I plead for more long-term road planning so that we can avoid piecemeal development. I plead, too, for the maintenance of the kind of programme that I presented. I should, of course, be delighted if it were possible to extend that programme, because I am conscious of the great need for an efficient roads system. It is because I believe that the Bill is an important weapon in getting the roads system that we need that I commend it to my hon. Friends.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen (Wells)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to face the House for the first time in this debate. I hope I shall not strain the indulgence of the House too far.

For 19 years my constituency of Wells was represented by a man whose sincerity, kindliness and integrity would be difficult for any successor to emulate. The House will know that Commander Lynch Maydon came to the House after a proud record of distinction in the submarine service, a record which even for that service was exceptional. The qualities required of a man to command in turn three of His Majesty's submarines throughout the six years of emergency, against a background of heavy losses are difficult for anyone to overrate.

From this experience, he brought to his constituency a shrewd understanding of ordinary people which was liked and respected. It is a matter of much regret to his many friends that, as the result of his long service to his country, in recent months he has suffered a severe toll on his health. I am sure that all hon. Members who knew him well will want to wish him a speedy recovery.

I count myself very fortunate to represent my constituency. It has an immense variety of occupations. It is the centre of the world's best cheese for a start. It has a huge dairy farming industry. Within it is carried on some of the most sophisticated electronic research in the country. It has one of the largest and most progressive footwear organisations in the world. It can boast a countryside and ancient buildings whose charm and beauty can match those anywhere else in the country. They give enormous pleasure to people coming from all parts of the kingdom and the world.

We are also, I fear, a constituency with atrocious and inadequate highways. Our road system in some places has been little improved, particularly in width, since the Highways Acts of the last century. This gives rise to the greatest anguish and concern. Not only do we have the holiday exodus to Devon and Cornwall in the summer, going from east to west on our roads; we also have a large amount of heavy transport travelling north to south, from South Wales and Bristol towards Southampton.

In addition to this, the same roads are carrying a constant stream of heavy stone lorries from our quarries, which provide the greater part of the stone for building the principal roads and motorways for the rest of England.

In the matter of roads, my constituency has a "full house". We are the producer, the middleman and the consumer, and we are fast becoming the consumed. Our elderly people in the villages are finding conditions difficult and serious. Our children are a constant source of anxiety to their parents when walking to school. We have a serious accident record, and our ancient buildings are badly shaken by the constant convoys of massive stone lorries. We need by-passes and relief roads in every town and major improvements in every village. I am left in no doubt about this whenever I go to any part of my constituency.

Anything which can be done to speed up the procedural delays in getting better roads and safer roads will be greedily welcomed in our part of the world. For the first time, we have two competent Ministers from the West Country who really know what the West Country has suffered all these years from inadequate roads. For one short moment, we had the Minister in charge of all the transport services, my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but that was, unfortunately, too good to last, and he was taken away from us pretty quickly.

But, satisfactory though the streamlining of procedure may be, the House should ensure that the safeguards are there for the individual rights and freedoms. I was glad to hear that a code is being produced, what my hon. Friend called "a code of amicable agreement", so that these rights may be safeguarded. A vast amount of resistance builds up against road planning procedure very quickly if it is ineptly and inadequately carried out by the highway authority. However good the Bill may be, the carrying-out of these procedures is vitally important as well. I therefore welcome what the Minister has said about public meetings before any decision is reached on these routes, and I should have liked it written into the Bill.

Of course, planning blight on an individual's house does not occur always or only when a specific route has been agreed and announced. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said that, even if a surveyor is seen walking about, that is cause for rumour. If he goes for a Sunday afternoon's stroll with his dog, he may cast planning blight on some unfortunate person's home. This must be carefully considered.

This can occur, too, when the highway authority allegedly commits itself to a route without formal plans: no formal objections can be raised and the individual has no means of redress I am glad to see that the Bill attempts to put right that anomaly, which has caused great anxiety in my constituency. Over 50 houses were blighted in this way and nothing could be done about it.

Another matter is the lack of certainty about future routes dragging on for years. This, again, causes much blight and difficulty to ordinary people. If speedier procedures are to work, and work better, the compensation must be generous and fair and the rules must eliminate unnecessary anxiety and hardship to a greater degree than in the past. In this way, we shall take the sting out of the anti-improvement lobby which immediately builds up when a proposal is made for road improvements.

One improvement which I should like to see for my constituency is in the way in which the Ministry calculates the economic rate of return on a proposed by-pass or route before it will give its blessing to that route. At present these calculations do not differentiate between the size of lorries. Whether a lorry is a three-tonner, 28-tonner or 32-tonner, they are all called "three-passenger car units".

It would make an enormous difference in our applications to get improvements made if those calculations could be done differently, so that the 28-ton stone lorries which pour through our constituency could be given the weighting they deserve. I suggest, too, that the hard-pressed computer "drivers" in the Ministry drop their keyboards and consider other criteria on which our towns could qualify for by-passes—particularly on amenity grounds. This is badly needed to preserve the fabric of the ancient buildings in my constituency, about which I wish the Bill said more.

I would like highway authorities to be obliged to place at the head of their priorities for minor improvements the need to put footways along principal roads, where schoolchildren have to walk to go to primary or infants' schools. The House will understand the anger and anguish of mothers whose children have to walk along these roads without a proper footway and who have to compete in a narrow 22-ft. road with 28-ton stone lorries making a terrifying noise. Although they may not be going very fast, they are very frightening objects. Proper footways for school children should be a top priority.

Unfortunately, many of these projects are at present not accomplished until there has been a tragedy. I have always felt that it was wrong that a tragedy was needed before necessary road improvements could be made. This is too frequently the case and it represents an inhuman and desk-bound attitude. I hope that the Minister will impress on local highway authorities the need to prevent casualties rather than wait for them to happen before making improvements.

Despite the high demand that exists for every form of social service, I am glad that the task of improving our roads is continuing to maintain a good position in the priority programme. It is extremely important that this programme has the priority it needs. I welcome the Bill and hope that it may be further improved to include some of the points I have mentioned.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

The House as a whole will wish to join me in telling the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) that we thoroughly enjoyed his maiden speech. We also wish his predecessor, Commander Maydon, a speedy recovery. We were sorry to hear how ill he has been since the election.

Although the hon. Member for Wells will not expect me to comment on the many interesting topics he raised in his speech, I join with him in expressing regret at our no longer having a Minister of Transport as such. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not comment further on his remarks, except to assure him that we listened to his speech with great interest and look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.

Hon. Members will probably expect me to join in the general welcome which has been given to the Bill. After all, I am a part-author of the Measure. I am particularly pleased with its 12 Clauses that deal with road safety, since this was one of the interests closest to my heart both in local government and during my stay at the then Ministry of Transport.

When introducing the Bill the Minister spoke of five headings, one being the need to build more quickly. In this connection, I pay tribute to the work of the road construction units, which were established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she was Minister of Transport.

During my stay at St. Christopher House I had the pleasure of visiting each and every one of these units. This enabled me to see schemes at first hand, in their various stages, from the drawing board to completion and opening. This mix of County Hall and Whitehall—this experiment in which County Hall and Ministry staffs worked together—has been a tremendous success and has played a profound part in the drive forward in the provision of new highways. This drive was particularly notable under Labour.

I hope that when the Under-Secretary completes his term of office he will be able to claim, as I am able to claim after my term of office, that his Government is spending, as mine did, twice as much money as the former Conservative Government spent five years earlier on new roads and six times as much as was being spent ten years earlier. In other words, I hope that this type of improvement in the completion of new roads will continue. I am sure that the road construction units will play their part.

It would be invidious to mention the names of individuals, though I am sure that nobody will mind my referring to two people out of the many engineers both on the Ministry side and on the county council side who have worked in this experiment, which I hope will now be a permanent feature. I refer to James Drake, Bridgemaster and County Surveyor of Lancashire, and Basil Cotton, Durham County Surveyor. Nobody who drives north-west or north-east can fail but to be impressed by the improvements that these individuals—these tremendous characters in their own right, working within the road construction units—have helped to bring about.

If there is any part of the Bill about which I am somewhat anxious, it is Clause 14. Perhaps further consideration can be given in Committee to this provision because it deals with a vital aspect of this type of planning; namely, the rights of the individual. While in office I was assailed time and again because of delays in pressing ahead with road schemes. I always defended the delays on the basis that it was preferable to consider the interests of the individual even if it meant delaying a scheme. I am worried because the Clause refers to a reduction in the objecting period, from three months to what the Minister described as a minimum of six weeks. All too frequently minima become maxima. I hope that this period will not be reduced so drastically.

As for the individual being required to state the grounds for his objecting to a scheme and to give information of alternative routes, I am concerned more with the individual than with the large amenity interests because organisations like the National Trust and C.P.R.E. are capable of looking after themselves. I am more interested in John Citizen or, more particularly, Geordie Citizen—the little man who, unlike the big organisation, has had to rely on a poster stuck up on a telegraph pole at the end of the street in his village to know what is happening locally.

For this reason I was delighted to hear the Minister speak of more extensive publicity for road proposals. Individual notices are far preferable to posters, particularly since most of these are set in eight point and are jargonised by people whose names I will not mention. The result at the end of the day is that the average individual does not know what is likely to happen to his area. Posters in simple language which can be understood by John Citizen should be displayed around an area before a scheme is proceeded with.

Clause 19—"Footbridges over highways"—causes me concern. Generally speaking, it is a safety Clause. I should like it to be strengthened. I am pleased to see the provision relating to lighting such bridges. I should like the Minister to consider giving the parapet massive illumination with the embodiment of a sign that could not be missed stating the clearance height. Perhaps an electronic device could be built into the structure in an effort to avoid terrible tragedies of the type which have occurred on footbridges over highways.

Clauses 25 and 26, which deal with the control of builders' skips, are to be welcomed by all. Although not a great number of fatal accidents have been caused by the proliferation of builders' skips on blind corners, there must have been many accidents resulting in pain and suffering which have resulted from badly lighted builders' skips being left lying about.

I hope that the provision in Clause 26(7) for paying moneys into the police fund will not encourage the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be tougher in his attitude to the just claim of police officers for higher wages. I hope that he will not think that the police fund will take care of everything.

Clause 27, dealing with the straying of animals on to the highway, substitutes "keeper" for "owner". This disturbs me, because it is calculated to let many irresponsible owners of animals escape from penalties if a minor happens to be the keeper, as is often the case.

It is remarkable what a tremendous furore a proposal for a major road scheme causes in any locality. Equally remarkable is the number of "spec" builders who quickly make a fortune building new houses right up to the fringe of the motorway when it is completed. I agree with the Minister that objections must be taken into account, but frivolous objections must not be allowed to delay a major scheme.

There is no provision in the Bill for the appointment of more road safety officers. Local authorities have permissive powers in this respect. Unfortunately, many local authorities do not realise the tremendous bonus that can arise for the nation and for local citizens from the appointment of a road safety officer. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing some strengthening powers in the Bill at least to give a further measure of encouragement to local authorities, if necessary by means of an incentive, to appoint road safety officers.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon)

I am glad to be the first speaker on this side to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) on his maiden speech. I do that most warmly. I thought, as I am sure that the whole House did, that it was an attractive, thoughtful speech with which his constituents will be delighted. I am sure that they as well as we shall be pleased to hear from him again.

I was glad that the former Parliamentary Secretary—the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown)—broke the mood of happy unanimity which prevailed between the two Front Benches at the opening of these proceedings, because I should have felt brusquer at having to do it myself. I recognise that some of the Bill contains much useful tidying up and modernising procedure. For that reason, I shall restrain myself from seeking to divide the House against the Bill tonight, though I regard much of the Bill as extraordinarily dangerous and, to me, repulsive.

I am not in the least surprised to hear that the Bill was initiated and drafted under the late Labour Government. That was exactly what I thought when I read the Bill. It contains most of the thinking of the old, and not by me regretted, Ministry of Transport—largely out of date, dedicated to the proposition that the creation and faster movement of traffic is more important than the people through whose countryside and environment the traffic moves. However, I find it surprising that a Conservative Government should have introduced the Bill in this form and even more surprising that the Bill should come from a Department calling itself "the Department of the Environment" in European Conservation Year.

I have certain reservations about a number of Clauses. Clauses 2–6 need careful examination in Committee. I have reservations about Clauses 37, 38 and 40. I have even more reservations about Clauses 46 and 49.

Clearly the most objectionable features of the Bill are Clauses 14–17. I could not possibly vote for the Third Reading of a Bill which still contained these Clauses in their present form unamended. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development to say that the object of these Clauses is to speed up the building of major roads while at the same time preserving the right of amenity societies to object and not encroaching upon the rights of land and property owners. It is very doubtful whether these provisions will in the end speed up the building of motorways. In fact, it can be argued that they will have the reverse effect. They do prejudice the rights of property owners and they will certainly make it more difficult for individuals and amenity societies to develop their objections properly. I agree that it is the smaller bodies and individuals who will be most hurt.

I know that those enthusiasts whose only aim is to build as many new roads as fast as possible will feel that any provisions put in to safeguard the rights of property owners or those concerned with the landscape are excessive, but the fact is that the scales are already weighted in favour of the Government.

Let us consider what must happen at the moment. The Department works, the road construction units work, the county surveyors work, in an atmosphere of almost total secrecy. They say, with some reason, that what they are trying to do is to prevent planning blight.

Planning blight arises anyway. Planning blight has descended over a considerable area of my constituency in South Warwickshire long before we have got anywhere near a preferred route, because any time a man with surveyors' equipment or with bore-hole equipment appears, the local newspapers immediately publish what they assume to be the line of a motorway link or of the new Oxford-Birmingham motorway and it becomes impossible for anybody to sell a house there at a reasonable price until the scheme develops further. In one area any number of routes could blight property, though many of them might have been discarded by the Road Construc- tion Unit or the highway authority some time before. Until the Minister finally makes up his mind and an Order for a preferred route is laid, the blight persists.

There is much to be said against the amount of secrecy that exists. Even now it is not easy, in the case of a motorway which may seriously affect the whole landscape over a long route, to prepare proper objections, including, perhaps, an alternative route, even in three months. Six weeks is ludicrous. My hon. Friend said that six weeks was the minimum and that for major schemes it might well be even more than three months, but the period should not be at the discretion of the Minister, who is already judge in his own cause of what he wants to do. It would have been more to the point if the Bill had stated that there should be a minimum of three months. That is not too much even for objections to comparatively minor schemes. It is certainly too little for the proper preparation of a case on a major special road.

In addition, the provision that the objectors must give notice if they wish to provide an alternative route, and also give notice of their objections in some detail at the time of making them, or within a period which the Minister shall lay down in the Order, makes life even more difficult for the potential objector and far too easy for the Department and the highway authority.

If people are given a period of six weeks, quite a lot of that time will be taken up in organising the local residents, and just informing them of what is happening. They will not automatically know. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West was right when he spoke about notices on telegraph poles. Even with an informed local Press, much of the six weeks will be taken up in simply alerting people to what is going on. Sometimes organising them requires the formation of a new local society to get the funds to carry through the objections at a public inquiry, and this takes time. It may be necessary to take professional advice, and perhaps to have alternative routes surveyed. A large amenity organisation may wish to get advice from quite high-level consultants, who cannot always be obtained at the drop of a hat. They may not be free to look at the matter for a week or two.

The result is that the Bill will not speed up the total procedure in the way that my hon. Friend suggested. If I were advising residents in my constituency as to what they should do in view of the reduction in the time available for objection and the necessity to state all their objections right at the beginning, I should advise them to put down objections on every conceivable ground at the outset, so that they could not be caught short at a later stage. The National Farmers' Union, in a moderate and well-reasoned objection to much of the Bill, made exactly the same point.

There are two aspects here. First, people will object on many more grounds so that they will not be ruled out of court on some which did not occur to them at the outset. Second, if a reasonably long period for consultation is given before the matter goes to a public inquiry, many objections which the local residents advance at the outset can be cleared up and removed after explanations from the Department or the local authority.

I do not believe that the Bill will speed up the procedure. It may even slow it down. In any case, it is unjust. To enable the Secretary of State at his discretion to ignore objections at the compulsory purchase stage, simply because they go over a point which has been covered before, makes the Bill even more unjust. If the period for objection is reduced to six weeks, something which may not have cropped up, or on which objectors did not have adequate time to present a case and obtain witnesses for the first inquiry, is barred to them the second time. An objector who puts in an objection at the compulsory purchase stage on a ground which he has not adequately developed before will find that he is not allowed to develop it properly, even though a great deal of new evidence may have come up.

I am not very happy about the provision that objectors producing an alternative route must declare it. The Minister should make it quite clear that he will not require to have it in very great detail, because to require that in six weeks would be quite wrong. Simply to put a tentative line on a fairly small-scale map is one thing, and no one would object to that, but to require any kind of detailed definition of a route, including the landscaping and so on, would be absurd. We have no right to expect citizens or amenity bodies to do that.

There is one point here in respect of which the Bill should be amended. I know that the Department will object strongly, but I believe that in the long run it would be in its interests. The Department asks in the Bill that the citizens shall put all their cards on the table and be shot down by the experts at a public inquiry, but the Department is allowed to work in complete secrecy and to give absolutely no details of the alternative routes which it has considered. It is required only to define and defend the preferred route and not the ones which it has considered and rejected. That is wrong. The public purse cannot be involved in much greater expense if the Department is required to give details of alternative routes, because all the work has been done on them before they have been rejected. If it has not been done, it is pretty lighthearted to reject other routes. The Department cannot have it both ways.

Not only would it make the procedure much more just if the Department were obliged to do that, but it would save a great deal of time and trouble for potential objectors and possibly speed up the whole matter. For one thing, a number of the alternative routes which have been considered and rejected will be identical with alternative routes put forward by objectors. If the Department can at a fairly early stage provide good reasons—costings, engineering difficulties or whatever they may be—to show that those routes are inadequate, it will not only save the trouble of arguing out that route again at the public inquiry but it may save objectors a great deal of money spent on surveying and trying to cost that route before they go to a public inquiry.

Mr. Mulley

The hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point. It is one that exercised me when I had responsibilities for these matters. But to some extent it will be met, in that I believe that information can be made available to objectors by the Department. I should like confirmation of that from the Under- Secretary. Before the hon. Gentleman presses what is, on the surface, the very attractive view that the public should be told all the routes examined before the final line is put forward as the Ministry or local highway authority recommendation, will he tell us what he would do about the very real problem of blighting all the properties that would be affected? I remember one case in which I think the hon. Gentleman was personally interested, and in which I had a very difficult decision to make. About 17 possible routes were taken and it would have been very serious for all the persons living on them if the routes had been published. They had no idea which was the likely one. Many of the 17 obviously would not have been supported by anyone, but if they had all been printed that would have made difficulties for the properties concerned

Mr. Maude

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course I take the point he makes. I was not proposing that, in all circumstances, it should be required that the Ministry should invariably publish all the alternative routes which have been rejected. But what I do believe is that there should be an obligation to provide information and costings of alternative routes with some kind of cost analysis and engineering reports if required by an objector who wants, perhaps, to put that forward as an alternative route of his own.

The point about planning blight is that nowadays the word gets round so quickly that one gets planning blight whether the Minister announces his alternative routes or not. I have been approached by constituents over practically every square yard of the 400 square miles of my constituency, telling me that a motorway link or a motorway was going to go through the ends of their gardens. The alarm has often turned out to have sprung from the Ordnance Survey checking bench marks with ordinary surveying equipment, but in some cases there have been surveyors examining possible alternative routes. The idea that one can still conceal the activities of these people in the state of alarm and alertness which the public has developed in respect of road development is absurd. One cannot. An enormous number of potential routes are being subjected to planning blight from the outset.

I do not want to make Committee points at this stage, since it is the principle of this part of this Bill to which I object, but I want to call the attention of my hon. Friend to Clause 17, about deviation of line. It is, I believe, wrongly drawn and misconceived. It provides, I understand, that the centre line may be moved by a distance of up to 55 yards, at any point. I think this is the wrong way round, since 55 yards may mean nothing in a particular scheme, but where one has a landscape of very high amenity value it may make nonsense of a balanced piece of landscape architecture which may have been agreed by the objectors.

Moreover, the same permitted deviation would not be appropriate on different sections even of the same motorway. It may well be that 55 yards is quite insignificant on one stretch but in another kind of landscape it may completely wreck the landscape balance of the scheme. This Clause should be phrased with the intent the other way round, so that the permitted deviation is laid down in each Order and may vary for different stretches of the scheme. Then no deviation should be allowed except what is laid down in each Order. This would be a much more intelligent, just and sensible way of doing it, and I hope we shall consider it in Committee.

I hope that the Government will look again at the procedure for inquiry. I think that they have gone too far in this. The scales are weighted against the citizen and the amenity society already and to some extent against the property owner. I seriously suggest that we want to be very careful here. People are more alert to the dangers. They are not now prepared unhesitatingly to accept that the creation of fast movement of traffic is the overriding priority. The preservation of the environment and the lives and villages and homes and views of people who live in the countryside are of equal, if not greater, importance.

I do not want to argue about whether we should have a large motorway programme, although I suggest that in many cases it is an ill-conceived programme, because we know that, despite all the talk about motorways simply diverting traffic and enabling it to move faster, they create new traffic, leaving very much the same amount of traffic behind on other highways. They can, in a small country and in a small landscape, completely blight an enormous area of countryside if they are not carefully done. It is the careful landscaping by agreement with local interests and experts that requires time and consultation and good will on both sides to get right. I believe that the Bill does not do enough to get it right, and I hope that it will be considerably amended in Committee.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South)

It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). The Bill really sets out to alter a number of Acts and consolidate them into a workable project. I am worried by much the same thing that he is worried about. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says clearly: The main purposes of the Bill are to reduce procedural delays in the construction and improvement of trunk roads and motorways; Being a London Member, I am particularly interested in the problems of motorways in London. In considering procedural delays, one must remember that the people owning property and houses in London realise the size of the problem. In London for nearly 10 years we have been discussing motorways and where they shall go.

I am convinced that somewhere tucked away in the pigeonholes of the G.L.C. is a plan which it will finally produce for the positions of the London motorways and that all the other plans which are produced from time to time, including plans by different local authorities, will finally be shot down by the G.L.C., which will produce its own original plan and say, "This is the plan we shall introduce. We hope you will all agree to it."

I am a member of the council of the London Borough of Wandsworth which took over, in co-operation, the old Metropolitan Borough of Battersea. We had the problems of the motorways ten years ago. Today people living in houses that are to be considered as lying on part of the motorway route are still suffering from blight. They still cannot sell their houses. Many people in Wandsworth are affected. One fast road has been completed called the Wandsworth Bridge southern approach. It finishes opposite Wandsworth Prison. From there it becomes an unclassified road. We thus have streams of traffic coming along the southern approach—the motorway—into an unclassified road. The people along that road, Trinity Road, have no idea when a plan is going to be produced to show where the new road leading to Norbury is to be. On behalf of all those who suffer from blight, particularly in Wandsworth, I ask the Minister to consider that people do want to know when a plan is going to be produced and when it is going to be put into operation.

Time factors of six weeks, three months or six months have been mentioned. It is grossly unfair that people who have bought small houses—and some of these houses are very small—should be faced with a planning edict after three or six months telling them, "We are sorry but we are taking your house. We are giving you fair compensation". That "fair compensation" does not enable them to buy a house of a similar kind somewhere else in that locality or outside London.

This is why we have to examine these Clauses very carefully. I am sure that when authorities like the G.L.C. consider these matters they are not dealing so much with people as with straight lines on a map. This is one of our problems in London; we have the threat of the Ringway, the inner box and these other proposals which will upset our domestic living.

The other problem relates to Clause 25 dealing with skips. This is a problem which is becoming more urgent in London. We are finding on narrow roads that there may be two skips parked opposite one another or parked on one side with cars on the other. The result is that there is about ten or twelve feet left for traffic to pass. Anyone who lives in London knows that most of the roads are being used as major roads. Drivers are using them to avoid the main traffic arteries. The result is that when these builders' skips are placed outside houses there is congestion, collisions, accidents and complete chaos.

The Bill contains the good suggestion that builder's skips should be painted with special reflecting paint. One of the amusing things is that the Borough of Wandsworth has a large number of these skips which we place in the roads for the removal of all sorts of material and refuse. We find that a practice is growing up whereby people are taking our skips with their vehicles. Often the borough inspectors go to look for a skip and find that it has been carted off by someone else. It is never seen again. The borough has lost a considerable number of these in this way.

Perhaps the Minister could consider whether skips should be licensed or numbered so that this sort of skullduggery does not occur. There are a lot of people in this business and it is easy for anyone to come along at night, hoist the skip on to their lorry and drive away. These skips are valuable. Some people say that they do not want the skips on public highways, but they are a great advantage in many London streets provided they are not parked opposite one another. We need to see that there is some control over them. One advantage is that the people living in these streets are able to dump their rubbish in the skips. During the last dustmen's strike they were very useful because people were able to put the rubbish into them. It is no advantage to the builder to have the rubbish but it is a great advantage to the people living there.

These skips can be a menace, but they are not so great a menace as the other vehicles parked in our streets. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for the Bill has not looked into this matter. The Minister for Local Government and Development has always been interested in road safety and the subject of lorries parked in streets. I am surprised that the Minister has not attempted to tackle this problem. In many of our London streets we find heavy articulated lorries parked, considerably reducing the width. We have vehicles containing six private cars for export parked in ordinary unclassified London roads. I would have thought that in such a Bill there could have been some provision to deal with this problem. I know that the Minister is keen on the subject.

In giving a general blessing to the Bill, I hope that the Government will consider these questions. The motorways are upsetting many thousands of people in Wandsworth and we want a decision to be made by the G.L.C. so that we will know where the roads are to go. Until then we cannot intervene to obtain alterations.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I would like to begin by apologising in advance to the Minister, due to a prior engagement, for having to leave without hearing his reply. I should like first to cross the t's and dot the i's of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) about lorries and cars. Lorries are not only parked on the streets but on the pavements. In narrow roads the local residents cannot get to their houses. I suggest that in Committee we look at Clause 25 to see whether we cannot widen it so as to include a provision to bring these vehicles under the same control as skips. I feel sure that the legal advisers of the Ministry could amend the Bill to cover this.

This is not just a question of annoyance and inconvenience to residents. Hon. Members who represent industrial parts of the country know that in these narrow roads the space left is often less than 12 feet or 15 feet and it is impossible for fire engines, ambulances or police cars to get down them. The Bill says that the police shall have power to take action, but we all know that the police are undermanned and underpaid. While they may have the power to enforce the law when illegal parking takes place, certainly in some parts of London there are insufficient policemen to do this. In working-class areas lorries can be found parked on the pavements and causing considerable obstruction. Strangely it does not happen in the more salubrious neighbourhoods of Chelsea, Westminster and the better parts of West London because the police stop it. I hope that they will also be able to stop it in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South and mine. If they cannot, the Bill will not have much effect. Perhaps more police are needed for the purpose or it should be made clear that action can be taken by them.

I now wish to refer to a local matter. No one would think that we in West Ham would be bothered by cattle, but we are. Clause 27 makes the keeper instead of the owner of certain animals liable to be penalised if those animals stray on the highway. Straying animals is a hazard which arises mainly in the country areas. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) referred to his area. I represent a Stratford—"Stratford-upon-East". We also have a great theatre and a great playwright, Joan Littlewood, who has put on some marvellous shows.

"Stratford-upon-East", which is right in the centre of London, has a straying cattle problem. The animals stray from Epping Forest and Wanstead Flats. My constituents do not have large gardens, but some of them have little cabbage patches at the back of the houses. They may come out one morning and find the cows eating their cabbages. [Laughter.] That may be laughable and perhaps not very serious. It depends whether they eat other than the cabbages. The danger is that the cattle stray across roads which are very busy with traffic, and children who use Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest because they are short of play spaces are liable to follow the cattle and be a hazard on the road.

Will it be possible for the local authorities to take action in this matter under the Bill? If not, I ask the Minister to give some thought to it. The City of London Corporation—and here I pay a sincere tribute to it—does a magnificent job in looking after Epping Forest and Wanstead Flats under a trust deed which is 400 or 500 years old under which the Corporation must guarantee and safeguard the right of farmers to allow their cattle to go anywhere unhindered. That might have been all right 300 or 400 years ago, but the City Corporation, the local authorities and all the people living in the vicinity feel that it is a bit much that a cow or bull or some other animal should be able to force its way into people's gardens. I agree that this is most unusual, but it seems that no one can do much about it.

The City of London wants to do something about it, but I understand that it is precluded from doing so by the Measure to which I have referred. I ask the Minister to consult the City of London Corporation and the authorities concerned with a view to amending Clause 27 in Committee, if it needs amending to deal with this situation. Perhaps in adjacent urban industrial areas cattle should be tethered or not allowed to come within a certain distance of the highway. If the Minister takes steps to deal with the matter, the people concerned will be very pleased. If it is not possible to deal with it under the Bill, perhaps he will have a word with the City Corporation to see whether a Clause can be put in the City of London (Various Powers) Act to deal with it.

I hone that the Minister will excuse me if I leave because I have another engagement. Perhaps he will write to me on the subject or deal with it in his reply.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

I apologise for not being present to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development open the debate. Unfortunately, like the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I shall have to leave before the end of the debate.

My purpose in intervening is to raise in this Bill an important constituency point which had previously escaped my attention. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for West Ham, North into the cabbage patch. I wish to lead him through the orchards beyond the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who I understand made his maiden speech in the debate, and into the neighbouring constituency of Bridgwater. The point I wish to raise has been brought to my attention in a leaflet produced by the National Farmers' Union, and it concerns obligations in connection with flooding. I wish to ask the Minister for certain assurances upon the matter.

Construction of a major motorway, the M5, will very shortly start across the plain of Sedgemoor. I do not know whether it is generally recognised that over 135,000 acres of Somerset are below sea level. In this area there is a major drainage problem which has exercised the attention of the House since the days of Henry II. The motorway will be a massive undertaking and a major engineering project going across extremely difficult terrain.

I am most concerned about the points which the N.F.U. makes in its document concerning inadequate Government assurances about the disposal of surface water from motorways and responsibility when flooding results from the presence of a motorway across such an area. There is a £1 million scheme under construction to try to improve the drainage of Sedge-moor. The presence of a motorway in this area will have very serious implications for the lie of the land. This is a natural moor of pretty doubtful substance at an average height of 25 ft. below the normal high tide level. The construction of the motorway, which will involve the largest earth-moving operation ever carried out in the South West, may change the traditional drainage channels around this area.

It is against that background that I am most concerned that the provisions should be adequate to help those of my constituents who may face a serious threat of increased flooding. With the construction of a motorway with metal surfaces there is a very different run-off rate during rain, and this may alter the drainage patterns. Sedgemoor can only be drained at low tide in the Bristol Channel. At high tide all the drainage gates and sluices have to be closed. Hon. Members will appreciate the problem this presents to my constituents and to people in other areas who will likewise be affected. There should be adequate provision to ensure that those who suffer for the necessary presence of a motorway in their area should have recourse to adequate compensation if their livelihoods are affected by flooding. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the attention which I can see is being paid to these points, and I hope that he will give an assurance on this matter when he replies.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)

I apologise to the House for continually popping in and out during the debate, but we are receiving visitations from large numbers of people on various matters which require our attention elsewhere.

There is a concentration in certain Clauses on speeding up the procedures for inquiries into applications for the development of highways and planning approval. I am concerned that this attempt to speed up the process of public inquiry will not result in the rights of the ordinary citizen being further trampled into the ground. People are hostile to planning under the Town and Country Planning Act and the various Highways Acts, not because they are hostile to better highways, flyovers and easier and more convenient access, but because they are denied the proper opportunities and facilities for putting forward their objections.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) referred to Clause 2 and the provisions for the protection of highways from flood. I join him in many of his remarks. A large area in my constituency lies on a flood plain 18 to 19 ft. above the height of the River Thames at its normal level and considerably below the level of the river at full flood. In these low-lying areas my constituents suffer the most nauseating and distressing experience of sewage coming through the sewers attached to the highway on to the highway and into their homes. Will the provisions of the Bill enable the London Borough of Bexley to take remedial action to protect its highway and to protect my constituents from the filth that comes through the sewer via the highway into their homes?

Part II deals with a question which has caused great concern throughout the country, the use by building contractors of skips to collect rubble to take away later on. All hon. Members will be aware from personal experience and from representations made by their constituents of the many serious accidents that have resulted from skips being left in dangerous positions unprotected by lighting and colouring. I give an unreserved welcome to that part of the Bill, which will greatly strengthen the power of local authorities to deal with the growing menace of skips which are left scattered about the highway.

I am pleased to see Clause 29, which deals with powers relating to retaining walls near streets. Ordinary, decent families in my constituency have been put to great inconvenience and have suffered great mental stress and pecuniary loss as a result of the erection of a retaining wall. Will the Minister explain why in Clause 29 provision is made for a fine not exceeding £20 for the erection of a retaining wall in contravention to the provisions of the Clause, whereas the Bill contains no power to enable the authorities to require the retaining wall to be removed and put into a safer and more convenient place? I understand that the town and country planning law also is defective in this respect. It is quite wrong to ask Parliament for powers to deal with this problem, but not to ask for the power which would really solve it—power to command the removal of an offending retaining wall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) and I had correspondence during his period of office as Joint Parliamentary Secretary about objections to highway proposals. I failed to get satisfaction from my hon. Friend, as no doubt I shall fail to get satisfaction from the Government. To enshrine in the Bill a proposal that the objection period should be reduced from three months to six weeks merely compounds what is already a disgraceful situation. A citizen who is faced with a proposal by the local authority to erect a flyover adjacent to his property is already at a grave disadvantage. The local authority has all the resources of its organisation—an organisation paid for, incidentally, by the poor unfortunate ratepayers—to prepare its plans. When there is a public inquiry, the poor citizen sits there like a humble supplicant, and there across the room are rank upon rank of local authority professional witnesses ready to tear to shreds every word he utters. I cannot support the proposal to reduce the period of time in which the poor objector, with his inadequate facilities, may prepare his case. No doubt the hon. Gentleman in his reply will say, "The hon. Gentleman must realise that that proposal was prepared when the Labour Government were in office". I do not mind who is responsible. If my own Government had put forward this proposal, I would have been equally critical and would have opposed it with my vote. That is what I intend to do in due course.

The provision also goes on to say that if the objector in complaining about the siting of the highway authority's proposal for a fly-over or road, or whatever it may be, wishes to suggest an alternative route, he must prepare that scheme in some detail and present it to the public inquiry, and indeed to the highway authority before the inquiry. This is not good enough. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State in his reply will spell out what proposals the Government intend to put before Parliament in the immediate future to enable the ordinary citizen who objects to this type of proposal to be given financial and professional assistance similar to the Legal Aid Scheme—indeed better than that scheme which is not all that helpful. Bearing in mind all the extra burdens and liabilities that lie on the shoulders of ordinary people, it is wrong that further restriction of an individual's rights should be embodied in the Bill without any compensatory factors to allow him access to funds and professional advice with which to prepare his case. I will oppose that provision to the best of my ability, and I shall ask my hon. Friends, and indeed hon. Gentlemen opposite who have any consideration for the rights of the individual, to join me in opposing the Government.

I turn to Part III of the Bill which deals with compulsory purchase and with compensation. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised that the present Government, which have pledged themselves to extend freedom and all the rest, should come forward with proposals, not to reduce the powers of compulsory acquisition, but to extend them. I am sure that we shall be told in the winding-up speech why the Government are extending these powers. It is right that we should have an explanation when we bear in mind what the Conservative Party have said on this matter on previous occasions.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) spoke in his excellent speech about planning blight and of the difficulties that can arise where no land is taken, where no property is affected, but where action by an authority leads to a planning blight on the poor unfortunate householder who has no redress at law for compensation and must bear the burdens on his own shoulders. I am amazed that this Bill should seek to extend the area of compulsory purchase, but should contain no provision to deal with the vexed problem of compensation for blight and injurious affection. May we be told why the Bill contains no such proposals? We should be given an answer this evening. We may be told that this is not the right sort of Bill to embody that type of legislation. Then let the House be given a clear indication that the Government will not be too long delayed in bringing forward a measure to deal with this social evil.

I remember many speeches by Conservative Members when in opposition about this iniquitous situation. Now is the opportunity for them to do something about it. It is not sufficient to allow local authorities to go forward with all sorts of desirable schemes which in the end are paid for with the suffering of the ordinary individual occupying his ordinary, humble home. If society wants social improvements, then society must pay for them. I hope this Government will live up to their words about the welfare of the ordinary individual, words which they have used on many occasions in the past, and that they will come forward with some positive proposals to deal with the situation.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Walthamstow, East)

I wish to apologise to the House for not being present during most of the debate, but I had to see some of my constituents who had come to the House.

There are one or two particular provisions in the Bill which I should like to discuss. I welcome the power given in Clause 25 for the removal of builders' skips. But may I inquire why this provision is limited purely to builders' skips? Should not the Bill be more explicit and admit that these skips are often used for rubbish and waste material for which a local authority may be responsible? Will my hon. Friend in his reply say whether this expression is as limited as it appears to be, or whether it is simply the name he has chosen for this type of container?

I wish to follow the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) because I, too, have a constituency that borders on Epping Forest. While Clause 27 deals with the dangers of straying animals and Clause 22 deals with highway authorities having the right to control the "hazards of nature" and surely a straying animal is such a hazard. I hope that these provisions will break the deadlock which has existed for so long between the recognition of commoners' rights and the need to safeguard the users of highways and roads in the Epping Forest area. In my own constituency straying animals have been a source of considerable concern. Only last year a motor cyclist was killed after colliding with a stray cow. This problem becomes even more acute in areas where there is a great deal of heavy traffic. Not only is there danger from life and limb, but also damage to gardens and other places. Although we must respect the rights which have been possessed by commoners for many years, I feel that those rights must now be tempered with regard to the changing circumstances of Epping Forest because of its proximity to Greater London.

Reference is made in the Bill to the New Forest, and my brother the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) would have been able to tell the House that in the New Forest the most extensive fencing has reduced the number of accidents caused by straying animals to an absolute minimum. I hope that the Bill will empower highway authorities and perhaps the local authorities with responsibilities for Epping Forest to put up fencing even if something more positive cannot be done in the way of compensating owners.

I hope that the words in Clause 22(1), with regard to providing fences on the highway, will get over the question of removing any part of Epping Forest, however narrow, for fencing. If fencing could be placed along the edge of the highway, there would be no loss of amenity to the conservators of Epping Forest. I hope that the Bill in giving these new powers, will allow the City Corporation and the conservators of Epping Forest finally to produce a solution acceptable to all parties. Such a solution should maintain Epping Forest's rustic beauty and also free many people from the fear of further tragic accidents being caused by animals straying on to roads at night.

In conclusion I would like to refer to Clauses 52 and 53. It is probably too much to hope that they are an earnest of the Government's intention to bring in a network of lorry routes, but at the same time we must recognise that heavy lorries are using roads which were never designed for that type of transport. We know that such lorries in terms of noise, pollution from exhaust, and vibration by virtue of their sheer weight, cause a great deal of damage to road surfaces and concern to people living in small towns or villages or in residential suburban areas, such as my own constituency. It is high time that we thought about introducing a system of lorry routes in this country which would be designated for heavy lorries, and which would take them out of villages, towns and residential areas.

It is probably too much to hope that Clauses 52 and 53 are the beginnings of this sort of thinking on the Government's part, but I hope that they are and that the Minister will reply on this point.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley (Leicester, North-East)

I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) on his maiden speech. He spoke with great sincerity, assurance and conviction. He made some very interesting points and I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing him speak again on behalf of the constituents of the delightful area which he represents.

I could have wished that my maiden appearance at the Box had coincided with a more controversial and exciting Bill. It is idle for any of us to pretend that the Measure which we are discussing is calculated to set the nation on fire or even to provoke a one-day stoppage. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) did his best to raise the temperature, but he had to admit that he was unlikely to inspire sufficient support in the Division Lobby on behalf of his efforts. Nevertheless, the Bill contains some provisions which we shall need to examine with great care.

The centrepiece of the Bill is undoubtedly Clause 14, whereby the period during which objections to a draft order or scheme for a new highway or major improvement is to be reduced from three months to six weeks from the publication of the notice. I listened with interest to the Minister when he explained that the six weeks was meant to be a minimum period. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, the minimum very often becomes the maximum. Whichever way we look at this reduction, it represents a further limitation on the rights of an individual to lodge an objection to the familiar and relentless demands of urban society where they impinge on private territory. Furthermore, in the event of a local inquiry, any objector who argues for an alternative route must provide sufficient information in favour of it not less than 14 days before the inquiry, otherwise the Secretary of State is empowered to disregard it.

Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State power to confirm part of the Order or scheme whilst deferring consideration of the rest of it. Both parts will then be treated as separate entities. That could lead to some very anomalous positions, with part of a scheme being accepted and the remainder being rejected. I accept that in most instances some parts would go ahead whereas the rest would become perhaps subject to modification. But in this kind of decision there is a danger of pre-empting a final judgment in the matter.

Surely the most important need is for much fuller information to be made available to the public to enable them to protect their interests. Firstly, they should be made aware of the proposals at the earliest possible date. Secondly, they should be given a clearer idea of the physical shape the proposals will take. Thirdly, they should be informed in the plainest possible terms of their right to object and the manner in which they can proceed to go about it.

It is not good enough to tuck away in the public notices column of the local newspaper a draft order, couched in legalistic language and printed in the smallest type available, the effect of which may be to alter drastically the lives and environment of citizens or the business prospects of traders. If Parliament intends to put further pressures on the individual to achieve speedier implementation of road building, then the least we can do is to ensure that no one affected is unaware of his rights. It ought not to be beyond the capability of administrators to organise a more personal form of notification and description of intentions than exists at present. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government are considering this point with a view to extending the manner and the method of conveying information over a wider area and on a more personal basis.

As the debate has revealed, there can be little quarrel with most of the other provisions in the Bill. With the greatest respect to parliamentary draftsmen, the title of the Bill ought perhaps to have been "Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill". There can be little quarrel with the provisions involving public safety.

Clause 30 makes it an offence to carry out building operations which give rise to the risk of serious bodily harm to persons in the street. Although I noted with interest what the Minister said, it is not clear when reading the Bill that the term "building operation" covers scaffolding. Unsafe scaffolding has caused some nasty accidents in recent years, including the death of a diplomat. The powers of control over scaffolding seem rather vague. If the Clause is intended to cover scaffolding operations, then the recommended maximum fine of £100 seems rather low. I agree with all of my hon. Friends who have spoken on that part of the Bill which deals with skips left in the street.

Clause 39 extends highway authorities' powers to acquire land in advance of immediate requirements. As the Minister indicated, the creation of blight could be avoided in some cases by acquiring land at much earlier stages than is at present possible under the existing state of the law. Clauses 40 and 43 have some bearing on this tricky and complicated problem, where a very finely balanced judgment will have to be made. I noted with particular interest what the Minister said about possibly introducing, at a later stage, measures to bring forward purchasing procedures. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take that matter a stage further when he replies.

Is this, however, to be the full extent of the Government's plans to tackle blight? The Secretary of State has been sounding off and making noises about this problem ever since he took office. If the full extent of the Government's proposals is embodied in the Bill, when is it intended that they will honour their pledges in this respect? When we consider the Bill in Committee, we shall be looking for something more positive and far reaching in this regard than we have at present.

These are all probing points which can more properly be discussed at later stages. Despite the intervention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, there has been a large measure of agreement on the necessity for the Bill. It will come as no surprise to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we do not intend to divide the House on the Bill. But we shall return to many features in detail and with some vigour when we embark on the Committee stage.

7.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine)

I must congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. This is not the most controversial Bill on which to make a debut from the Opposition Front Bench, but there can be few more difficult Bills when one considers its complexity and attempts to retain in one's mind the number of Clauses and competing problems dealt with in this Measure. The hon. Gentleman is to be applauded for the way in which he set out his case.

I do not want to give the impression that I have forgotten the notable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), but perhaps I might say a few words about my hon. Friend when I deal with the points that he raised.

I see no way of dealing with the numerous matters raised by hon. Gentlemen in global terms. Instead, I will go through them and attempt to answer them. Many have been raised several times, and I will try not to repeat my answers.

The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East saw difficulties in the limits of deviation dealt with in Clause 17. This is the power which is to be included in an order for the making of a line of a road to deviate the centre line by 55 yards within the scope of the provision laid down in the original order. In other words, anyone looking at the proposed line of the road will see the point at which it can deviate one way or the other.

It could be said that this is another monstrous infringement of the rights of individuals and that we should not do it. However, the hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends taking that view should bear in mind the words of their right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who saw the problems at first hand and was obliged to make decisions which helped him to understand that the purpose of introducing this provision is to assist people and nothing more. In order to move a line slightly to accommodate objections put to an inspector at a public inquiry, it is necessary to have this small flexibility. At the moment, there is no flexibility. If a 20-mile stretch of road is being considered, it falls to the Minister to decide whether to make the order. If someone would be helped by moving the line a little, all that the Minister can do is not make the line for the whole 20-mile stretch. He therefore faces the agonising choice of holding up what might be a multi-million pound investment of taxpayers' money in a major road which is clamoured for by hon. Members on all sides, or taking into account the interests of one individual. He has no other power. It follows that this provision is a very valuable protection for individuals and will enable a human approach in the road building programme to be greatly extended.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to Clause 30, which deals with building operations affecting public safety. The simple answer to his question is that "any building operation" includes scaffolding. The hon. Gentleman's point about a fine of £100 can be looked at in Committee.

I was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's slightly belligerent tone when he remonstrated with the Government on compensation. No one would suggest that this is not a serious and difficult matter, and my hon. Friend spelt out the Government's concern about it. Indeed, it is one of our Election pledges. Compensation is a difficult and far-ranging subject, but it is quite wrong to criticise the Government for not finding solutions to problems which eluded right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during their long period in office. However, we intend to make a statement in the not-too-distant future about the way in which we hope to fulfil our pledge.

I turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park. His contribution bore the stamp of great experience in these matters, and it must not be forgotten that he played a big part in the thinking on the drafting of this legislation. It was not that the right hon. Gentleman wanted Draconian powers to speed up the road-building programme. It was more a matter of the right hon. Gentleman having to make these detailed decisions and coming to what I consider to be the right conclusion that it is necessary to get a degree of flexibility into the available procedures in order to protect the small people who were referred to time and time again in the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Let me put the matter in some prespective. Those of us who are responsible in my Department on the road-building side know that it is not a matter which is looked at askance by Members of Parliament. It is not unpopular or unwanted. The continual theme concerns the need for early decisions and more of them and for more expenditure on roads in all parts of the country. The overwhelming consensus is that we need more roads and need them quickly. The only disciplines ever suggested are the protection of the individual and the scarcity of financial resources.

We are discussing here a range of procedures by which a more human approach can be brought to this problem, and the right hon. Gentleman put specific questions to me which I will attempt to answer. He asked whether the Bill dealt with public transport, and whether it was the last word of the Government on this important subject. However, this is not a comprehensive transport Measure. It is a Highways Bill—

Mr. Mulley

I did not ask whether it dealt with public transport. I said that one of the problems of public transport is priority and that that involves road planning. That is the aspect with which I am concerned. Have local authorities these necessary powers?

Mr. Heseltine

The right hon. Gentleman asked about bus lane priorities, and that point must be seen in the context of the road passenger transport problem. Certainly it is more appropriately dealt with there than in legislation of this sort. We are apprised of the urgency of that side of transport activity. This Bill does not pretend to deal with that problem, but certainly we are aware of it.

The right hon. Gentleman's next question was about the powers of local authorities over parking. The same comment applies to that. This is not the right legislation for it, but we are very conscious of the need.

The purpose of this legislation is to blend the efficiency necessary in a massive annual multi-million pound investment with the private rights of individuals, and we have introduced provisions in the Bill which will be to the advantage of the individual and not against it.

The right hon. Gentleman then asked whether the Bill was a manifestation of the Government's road programme. However, I am sure that he appreciates that that is a different subject upon which we shall be making a statement shortly. It is not relevant to this debate.

I must now congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells on his maiden speech. I know that the House will join me in expressing our sorrow on hearing my hon. Friend's references to the ill-health of his predecessor, Commander Lynch Maydon. We are extremely sorry to hear about it, and our good wishes go to him.

My hon. Friend spoke about the appalling highways in his constituency, and there is a familiar ring to that complaint. I have heard it before, and I will not mention my own constituency.

I was impressed by my hon. Friend's compassion for elderly people who live in the villages of his constituency and in rural areas throughout the country. However, instead of expressing the worries and anxieties of old people who live in traffic-congested villages, though in no way wanting to ignore them, I wish that it would be remembered that one of the purposes of the roads that we are discussing is to take the congestion out of village streets by building by-passes round them, thus bringing a massive improvement to the environment and amenities of the people whose plight concerns my hon. Friend. The developments envisaged in this Bill will all help to reduce the accidents and noise of which my hon. Friend complains. My hon. Friend also referred to the loneliness of old people living in villages. It is to be hoped that our inquiry into rural bus services will be valuable in this connection. I share the general remarks which have been made. I believe that it was a compassionate and realistic speech. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to many further interventions from my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), with experience from recently holding office in the Ministry of Transport, was in slight difficulty when he said that he was optimistic and hopeful that I should be able to come to the Box at the end of my period in Government and say that I had seen the road building programme expand to twice its present level over five years and to six times its previous level over ten years. The hon. Gentleman nods, which I take to be complete understanding that that is what he said. The Labour Government produced a White Paper on the road-building programme shortly before leaving office showing that their best possible targets were an 8½ per cent. increase to 1974–75 and 3 per cent. thereafter. So the hon. Gentleman is at one with me in believing that his Government would not do anything like as well as this Government.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 14, which was referred to with great force and compassion by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), raising the whole problem of the effect of reducing the present statutory three-months period of objection to the making of a line for a road to a minimum period of six weeks. I accept that it is possible, as a debating point, to say that this means that the Draconian forces of modern road building are moving in. But I defy anybody to say, with his hand on his heart, that that is what he honestly believes will happen. It will not. The people responsible for administering these procedures, whether it be the officials of the Department, the people in the road construction units, the local consultants, the local authorities, or politicians on both sides, simply would not tolerate a situation where powers of this kind were used to infringe private rights. Everybody in this House must know that to be the case.

On the other hand, there are numerous occasions on which it will be to everybody's advantage to shorten the period to six weeks. The first effect is that we shall still have a three-months period, and, in addition, six weeks' notice of the holding of the public inquiry, so that we shall have four-and-a-half months. Our proposal is that in non-controversial areas, where few objections are outstanding, it might be advantageous to everybody to have a shorter period—six weeks' objection period and six weeks following to give notice of the public inquiry.

I will give the House an example. Let us consider a road scheme of considerable length—say, 20 miles. If the whole scheme is acceptable, after a public in- quiry, with the exception of a half-mile stretch which the Minister or the officials responsible desire to switch slightly beyond the 55 yards facility available, the Minister responsible would have the option to allow the 19½ miles to go on under the powers in the Bill, but, in the context of the other half-mile where all the information was available—where everybody had argued about it and examined it and there had been a public inquiry—to shorten the procedures to only six weeks before going through the new procedures for the deviation from the half-mile which he wants to alter. It must be in everyone's interest to speed up the procedures in that kind of situation. That is the flexibility which the Bill gives. That would be the kind of occasion upon which its powers would be used. It is unrealistic to pretend that anybody is trying to steam-roller major road building schemes through the House against the wishes of the small minority affected by them. That is not the way that it would work.

Mr. Bob Brown

I am sure that, like other hon. Members, the Under-Secretary must have had the heartfelt letter from the constituent who realises too late, at the end of the statutory period, that he had a right to object. If what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks is carried out, and individuals are informed individually, I am sure that no one would object to shortening the period to six weeks. But on major schemes the hon. Gentleman knows well enough that six weeks really means nothing.

Mr. Heseltine

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to make the point that, in the context of major schemes, the powers would not be used. The objection periods might be greatly extended. We might regard three months as totally insufficient for the purpose and, coupled with the additional publicity, we would be in a position to give greater prominence to major schemes. But we are talking about the other end of the scheme—a deviation which, in everybody's interest, should go forward more quickly.

I think that everybody will bear in mind the problems, to which we have had constant reference in the debate and which we all know about from our postbags, of the blight occasioned by delays. Therefore, if it is possible, without hurting anybody, to alleviate blight by shortening delays we are protecting people in the way that hon. Members have been arguing that we should try to do.

Mr. Maude

I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that it is not just a question whether the Department will apply these new rules fairly, but that justice must also be seen to be done so that people will not feel that the scales are being loaded further against them. Would it not be better to specify in the Bill a minimum time for each class of scheme? For example, a minimum of six weeks for a minor scheme, so much for a principal road and so much for a special road?

Mr. Heseltine

My first reaction is that I do not dissent from the thought behind my hon. Friend's question, because that is the thought which will influence people responsible for exercising these powers. The Bill is designed to give precisely that flexibility. We can look at this point in Committee. I am not sure that we would be able to satisfy ourselves about the definitions required without introducing another complicated set of procedures which would baffle people even more. Nevertheless, this is the kind of point which my hon. Friend, if he is selected, will no doubt raise in Committee. It is an interesting point.

I want to create in people's minds the firm view that these powers will be used to help people, not to override them. I believe that hon. Members who share in the difficult business of exercising these powers will understand that what I am saying reflects the reality of the way these problems are resolved.

I will not go through all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. I think that, in the tone of what I have said, I have covered a number of them. We can look at the details in Committee.

My hon. Friend raised one general important point concerning alternative routes and information which will be given about them. I am pleased to clarify the position. The Department will always provide factual information about routes based on research and costs. Objectors will be able to come and ask for the details which my hon. Friend suggested should be available. They are available, and we shall be pleased to make them available to objectors.

The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) raised the question of builders' skips. I agree that they are of great value and efficiency in the building industry. The scheme considered for introduction in this legislation has been the subject of consultation with the building industry. It will be controlled by a licensing system. We can consider the details in Committee. However, it will be a step forward in a valuable modern technique which has been developing.

I do not believe that we should try to couple it at this stage with the problem of large lorries parked in side streets. Hon. Members on both sides are understandably anxious about this problem. The local authorities already have power to deal with this matter. A number of experiments are being conducted in conjunction with local authorities to see what can be done about lorry parks and so on. As I say, the power already exists and it is for local authorities to decide whether they want to use it. We should not confuse the valuable technological rationalisation in the use of builders' skips with the parking of large lorries.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) asked whether I would consult the City of London Corporation about straying animals. I am informed that this would not be an appropriate matter for the Highways Bill. But the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that, when the Animals Bill reaches the Floor of the House, he will have an opportunity of raising that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) raised the issue, first brought to our attention by the N.F.U., of flooding. I refer my hon. Friend to Clause 21, and Schedule 2. He will find that, in addition to the powers which highway authorities have to construct drains, they are for the first time being given power to allow water to discharge through those drains. It is true that water has for long been discharged through these drains, but now it will be statutorily legal for that to be done.

That provision will be of advantage to farmers because we are applying to the discharge of water the same compensation procedures as are applicable to other similar activities. The farmers will therefore have a statutory protection, and a right of redress and compensation in the event of flooding as a result of water flowing through the drains. This is a step forward, and will be of help to many hon. Members who have raised this matter.

The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) was again rather less than fair to the Government, who have been in office for only five months. He takes the view tint we should by now have found solutions to the problems left unsolved by his hon. Friends. He seems to believe that the whole question of compensation should by now have been dealt with and, indeed, that legislation should have been enacted by now to deal with this problem. The fact is, however, that it is a complex issue. I appreciate that as the Election fades from memory so the indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite will mount as they forget the difficulties and problems which they were incapable of solving. This issue cannot be left to the mercy of party politics. A great deal of human hardship is caused by the problem and nobody is more aware of it than is my right hon. Friend who has the matter very much under his consideration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked whether the Bill would empower local authorities to put up fencing as an animal protection. I have to tell him that it would not. That would be possible only as a result of a private Act of Parliament, and it is not the intention to adjust the Bill to cope with that.

My hon. Friend also raised the question of Clauses 52 and 53 applying to heavy lorry parks. It will not be within the compass of those Clauses to deal with that problem.

I hope that the House will forgive me for what has been a speedy attempt to answer as many as I could of the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This has been an extremely informative debate, and I am sure that we shall have a stimulating Committee stage. I am convinced that the benefits that will flow to the community from the flexibility of the Bill, particularly with regard to the building of highways, will be immeasurably helpful to individuals. I believe, too, that the Bill has a valuable road safety facet which is greatly welcomed by the House, and I have great pleasure in asking hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

c328
1. HIGHWAYS [MONEY] 105 words