§ Clause 55, page 43, line 43, at end insert ("and to provide whenever they shall deem necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock adequate grass or other margins by the side of the roads under their control")
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, this is the clause which contains a provision that proper footpaths shall be provided when the local authority deems it necessary and desirable. It has now been extended to "adequate grass or other margins by the side of the roads" for the safety and accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock. I think two members of your Lordships' House asked questions on that point when the Bill was here, and I hope this will give some satisfaction to them. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell.)
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, as one of the delinquents who asked questions may I say I do not think the noble Earl was quite convinced of the justice of our case, but I am glad to think the Government have made this concession. It will be most popular all over the country in the agricultural districts and with those who are still accustomed to use horses for riding. I must say it is a great concession, and on behalf of my friends who raised this point I thank the Government for having met us so fairly and squarely.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODMy Lords, I do not wish in any way to object to this addition. On the contrary, I am very glad it has been made; but I wonder whether the Government would go a little further and insert these words at the end:
and the highway authority shall in no case take away such footpath or margin where it exists without the prescribed licence of the Minister.This is a grievance which has come before me personally in a part of the country that I know very well, and I should like to describe exactly what happened in that case. There is a main road running from London to Lewes, and from that main road branches off another road of a similar character, but still of an important character, going to the East-bourne road at a place called Nutley. This secondary road comes away from the Lewes road and curves round, going downhill in order to get on the straight to go through Nutley. Round that curve till recently there was a grass verge, with a ditch in it. It is obviously rather a dangerous road. There is considerable traffic, including, I am sorry to say, a line of omnibuses, which, I think, never ought to have been allowed on a road so small as that. But evidently the foot passenger going along that road has to keep on the inside of the kerb—it is the natural place for him to go—and if there should be two cars passing at the same time as he is on the road he could get on to the bit of grass, if necessary, and so save his life or his limbs.Quite recently, without any communication to the inhabitants, the road authority has taken away that grass verge. I understand that they have put pipes into the ditch, or something of that kind, and then, instead of restoring the grass for the use of the foot passengers, they have made the roadway right up to the edge of a considerable bank that there is by the side of the road. The result is that there is no kind of refuge for the foot passengers, and it is a serious grievance there—so serious that a petition has been got up, and was signed, I think, by the greater part of the population in that district—signed with great enthusiasm, all protesting against this infringement of their ancient liberties. It is quite true that the traffic on the road is not very great—it is a country place—hut it is as great as on any road 869 in the district, because it is the road which goes through the greater part of the population that exists there, and past the local post office.
I ventured to write to the Ministry or Transport on the subject, and they sent down and made inquiries, and were informed—and I do think it a very unfortunate incident in the whole transaction—they were informed, no doubt on local evidence, that no such thing had occurred, that there had been no extension of the roadway up to the bank at all. Well, that is simply untrue, as any number of people could tell you if you went there and enquired in the locality. No doubt, they enquired from the local surveyor, but it is an indication of the spirit in which these things are approached in the eyes of a road surveyor. The foot passenger has no rights, and is entitled to no protection. All he considers is what some emissary of the local omnibus company has possibly said to him about the desirability of a larger road in order to make it easier for the omnibus traffic.
I think it a very reasonable provision to say that where the local authority desires to take away this privilege from the foot passenger or the horse passenger or livestock, some impartial authority, some body or other at any rate should be there who would review the interests of the whole population, including the live stock owner and the foot passenger, before such a thing was permitted. What I am suggesting is simply that before a diminution in the rights of pedestrians should be allowed there should be a licence obtained from the Ministry. I have said "prescribed" because I notice in the next clause that there is power to prescribe by regulation all the details of a thing of this kind, and, of course, all the necessary details would have to be arranged. I really do not think that this is an unreasonable thing to ask. It is not to meet a theoretical grievance; it is to meet an actual grievance which has occurred within my own knowledge and probably has occurred in a great many other parts of the country.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODI do not think so. In many cases you give some kind of appeal from an authority 870 either by a public inquiry or by the action of the Ministry. It is a very common provision to have some protection of that kind, and I feel that in view of this case and the obvious bias that must have existed as shown by the false information which was given to the inspector of the Ministry, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask. I hope that the Government may see their way to put it in at any rate here and see what their advisers think of it when it goes back to another place. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 43, at end of the Commons Amendment insert ("and the highway authority shall in no case take away such footpath or margin where it exists without the proscribed licence of the Minister.")—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD PONSONBY or SHULBREDEMy Lords, I sympathise very much with the particular case which the noble Viscount has alluded to, but, although I live in the same county as the noble Viscount, I do not know the particular spot he refers to. I very much regret that false information should have been given to him with regard to this particular verge of grass which was taken away from the roadway. My sympathies in these cases in country lanes are entirely with the pedestrian. Although I have driven a car myself for the past sixteen years, I have been a pedestrian since I was two years old, so I feel more strongly on the pedestrian's side. But I do not think that the particular case the noble Viscount has brought forward is common. I do not believe he will find that the verges of the road are taken away in such a fashion as to cause danger in many cases, if in any; whereas, on the verges of the road the grass at the side has very often to be taken for the sake of widening the road.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODThen they ought to provide another footpath.
LORD PONSONBY or SEIULBREDEIn the majority of cases it might not in any way lead to danger or really take away in some cases, perhaps, from the broad margin which there may be at the roadside. I think on the whole it would be impossible to ask that the local authority should be expected in every one of these cases, which would be very numerous indeed, to apply specially to the 871 Ministry of Transport. If we had before us many cases where this had been done and had produced a dangerous corner or dangerous road, then it would be different. I think the case the noble Viscount has put forward is a very exceptional one; whereas in the ordinary course of having to cut off a certain amount of grass at the side to broaden the road it happens very frequently. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, I must confess that I am sorry that the noble Lord opposite is unable to accept my noble friend's Amendment. I had hoped when he told us that his experiences as a pedestrian had ranged over a great many more years than as a motorist he might have had more sympathy with my noble friend. It is clear from what my noble friend has said that this does exist, and he has produced a concrete case in his part of the world which he probably knows better than any of your Lordships. It is not denied that these cases exist elsewhere, and it does not seem to me to be very much to ask that if there is a case where the grass at the side of the road and the footpath are taken away, and there is a real objection to it, before the local authority decides the Ministry should be consulted and, if necessary, appealed to to prevent circumstances arising such as the noble Viscount has described. And I would suggest that as the Amendment has been brought forward only this afternoon—I do not, think it is on the Paper—at any rate it might be inserted now and considered very carefully. Opportunity will occur, of course, in another place for rejecting it, if necessary, and I rather hope it will be possible to give it a little more consideration than has been extended to it.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, like previous speakers I have every sympathy with this Amendment; but what is a footpath? I do not know whether there is any definition as to what a footpath is. Sometimes it is merely a track just about a foot wide at the side of the road. Is it reasonable to expect the Minister to hold an inquiry when the surveyor of the local authority wants to take a foot or two away from the side of the road. I think we are rather in danger of making too much of a particular instance, and I very much hope that,
872 while I am sure the attitude of the Ministry of Transport would be quite sympathetic, we shall not bring too much pressure to bear on the Government. If the Ministry have to hold an inquiry into every one of these cases, by how much shall we have to increase the staff of the Ministry? Therefore, I think, we ought not to try to get too much out of one particular instance like this.
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, I was rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, supporting this Amendment, because he knows as much as anybody about local authorities and he knows about their sense of responsibility and the important duties they have to perform. I would ask your Lordships to see what the Amendment suggested is. It is to add to the Commons Amendment the words:
and the highway authority shall in no case take away such footpath or margin where it exists without the prescribed licence of the Minister.Really that is a remarkable interference with people who have been in the habit of taking charge of roads for centuries, who have more or less done as they pleased with them and who, after all, are subject to popular election and popular control by the people of their own districts. It is a very large order to say that they shall not even make a bay to deposit stones in without the licence of the Minister, for that would be covered by this Amendment. I confess that I was just a little surprised to hear the noble Earl support this. The noble Viscount, I think, is very often less impressed with the difficulties of local authorities and more impressed with the immediate object that he is pursuing, but I do put it to him that as a mere matter of ordinary administration it is not a reasonable Amendment to make, and I hope that it will not be pressed.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODMy Lords, I do not know whether I am entitled to say anything more, but, perhaps, your Lordships will permit me to say one word. There is no question of holding an inquiry, but I see no reason in the world why before doing 'a thing of this kind the local authority should not 873 send up a statement of what they propose to do, with, if necessary, a small plan attached. It would all have to be arranged by the Ministry and they would be able to make the necessary regulations. It really would be an extremely simple thing to do, and I would say very earnestly that these people have a right to protection. It is all very well to talk about the local authority being an elected authority. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that in cases of this kind it is the surveyor who decides and nobody else, and it is decided very often under pressure from some important people. All these things are done, and there is really no means of control by the machinery of election over things of this kind. You cannot expect an election to turn upon a question whether the verge of a road has or has not been taken away.
§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODVery likely, but I do not suppose the noble Earl thinks that is a desirable state of things. I must say that I am disappointed at the attitude of the Government in this matter. If they think that this Amendment is right in principle, as I really believe that Lord Ponsonby does, and that it ought to be more carefully surveyed and possibly drafted in a different way, then their right course is to accept it and to see how it can be dealt with. This is a real grievance, and I am sure it could exist in a great many other parts of the country. We are aware of cases where roads have been deprived of their grass verges, to the great injury not only of the safety of the other users of the road, but also of the amenities of the country. I feel rather strongly about this matter and am inclined to press it to a Division.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, my experience is that when footpaths are provided the people do not use them. Therefore, the people in the locality know whether the footpaths are going to be used and can deal with the matter accordingly.
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, I do not think I can support my noble friend Lord Cecil if he presses this to a Division. You really must trust the local authorities. After all, every district is represented by some person and the people of 874 the locality can go to the elected representative and make the ordinary representations. If this is carried it is going to involve enormous expense. You will never get any improvement anywhere if every time the local authorities are subject to a right of appeal. Surely you must trust them in tins matter? The clause you have already put in, which the Government have improved, makes it the duty of the local authority to see that there are adequate footpaths if possible, and I should have thought that point is amply covered by the clause the Government inserted and added to this afternoon.
§ On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment negatived.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to and Commons Amendment agreed to accordingly.