BEVERLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 11 March 1948)

§ LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

had given Notice to move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill has been referred that, in considering Part III of the Bill, particular regard should be had to the interests of agriculture in the district concerned. The noble Lord said: My Lords, under Part III of the Beverley Corporation Bill, it is proposed to abolish a ferry which at present carries vehicles across the River Hull, and to put a footbridge in its place. A ferry which carries vehicles and animals has existed here for as long as anyone can remember. It connects the town of Beverley with the village of Weel, and the distance from Weel to Beverley market by way of the ferry is about one mile. Weel is a small agricultural village with ten farms and about 1,100 acres of agricultural land. It is mainly a dairy farming area and produces over 56,000 gallons of milk a year. It also produces large quantities of cereals, roots, sugar beet and potatoes. There are about seventy acres devoted to market gardening produce. The village has no shop, telephone or electricity supply and is entirely dependent for its supplies and market on the town of Beverley across the River Hull.

If the ferry is done away with, the only way out of the village lies along a narrow lane which is in a bad state of repair. That lane runs northward for about a mile and a half alongside the river until it reaches the main road and a bridge across to Beverley. This lane is below the winter level of the river and is often impassable owing to water seeping through the banks. It is also subject to bad snow-drifts. In either case, the village will be completely cut off from all supplies carried by vehicles. Even when the road is passable, the round trip 705 involves a journey of about four miles, with the consequent waste of time, labour and petrol. It is also a point that the proposed footbridge is considerably upstream from the ferry, and its use would add about half a mile to the walk to Reverley, a fact which must tend to make the village even more isolated and increase the labour problems.

The ferry is owned by the Beverley Corporation who acquired it some years ago. It is at present in a poor state of repair and in consequence is not used so much as it would otherwise be. The number of vehicles which would normally use it is about twenty a day and, if it were in a better state of repair, there would be more vehicles of various tradesmen going over to the village. The proposal to abolish a crossing for vehicles is almost unanimously opposed by the inhabitants of the small village, on the grounds of its harmful effect on the farmers in the area and the possible loss of valuable foodstuffs to the nation. Naturally, I am not asking your Lordships to prejudge the issue. It would be most improper to do so, since it has to be considered by the Select Committee who will decide on all the factors. However, I was asked by the National Farmers' Union to put down this Motion to draw the attention of the Committee specifically to the fact that there are agricultural considerations of substance. I have tried, very inadequately, to show that agriculture in this district may be adversely affected. In my view, at the present time we should think very carefully before we do anything which may make the task of the farmer more difficult. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will be willing to accept my Motion. I beg to move.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

My Lords, I think I may say, on behalf of the Government, that we are not at all unsympathetic to the Motion. The problem involved is a small but very complicated one, and, as 706 the noble Lord has just told us, agricultural interests are considerably affected by it. However, it is on a small scale—about 1,000 acres altogether are involved, and the village which is under consideration is quite small. On the other hand, I understand that this bridge, which is in an extremely bad state of repair, mainly owing to the activities of the Home Guard during the Second World War, will cost a large sum of money to rebuild. In fact, estimates have gone as high as £15,000. The problem is to judge whether that is really a sum of money to be expended and a work to be undertaken when balanced against the real and substantial agricultural benefit which would accrue to the village and the farms. I do not intend to go into that question now, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is being considered by the Select Committee. As a Department, we have sent in our report to the Select Committee, giving our views as to how agriculture will be affected. However, if the noble Lord wishes to press his Motion, we have no objection and shall be willing to accept it. When all considerations are taken in account, however, I feel that it would be as well to leave the matter to the Select Committee who, I am sure, will consider it carefully.