Lords Sitting of 3 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING
  4.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from His Majesty the King signed with his own hand. It is as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1949, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947. I will comply with your request."

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, &c., BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SPECIAL ROADS BILL
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Supplementary orders relating to special roads
3,—(1) At any time after a scheme under this Act authorising the provision of a special read has come into operation, provision may
120
be made by an order under this Section for any of the following purposes, that is to say:
(c) for authorising that authority—

(i) to stop up, divert, improve, raise, lower or otherwise alter any road which crosses or enters the route of the special road or is or will be otherwise affected by the construction or improvement of the special road;

(ii) to construct any new road for purposes connected with any such alteration as aforesaid or for any other purpose connected with the special road or its construction, and to close after such period as may be specified in the order any new road so constructed for temporary purposes;

(e) for authorising or requiring the special road authority to exercise, either concurrently with or to the exclusion of any local authority, any functions which, apart from the order, would be exercisable by that local authority in relation to the special road or any part thereof;
(5) An order under this section may provide for the payment of contributions—
(b) to the special road authority by any other authority in respect of any liabilities so imposed on the special road authority, being liabilities which would otherwise have fallen to be discharged by the other authority;
and may also provide for the determination of disputes as to the payment of such contributions.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1) (c) (ii), after "aforesaid" to insert:
"including a road to provide for traffic hitherto using any road appropriated under paragraph (a) of this subsection."
The noble Viscount said: All the Amendments I am moving on behalf of the County Councils' Association are of a drafting or semi-drafting nature. With regard to this first Amendment, it is clearly the intention of the Government to empower the Minister, where ordinary traffic is diverted by reason of the making of a special road, to authorise the construction of a new road; indeed, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) a number of reasons for constructing the new road are enumerated. The Minister can authorise a special road authority to make a new road for any of those reasons, but there is no specific power to enable him to authorise the making of a new road where a part of an existing road is appropriated in toto. It would certainly seem obvious that that is the intention of the Minister but I am advised that it

121
is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, and this Amendment has been put down to clear up that point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("aforesaid") insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I hope I can give the noble Viscount an assurance which will convince him that the intention of the Bill in this respect is expressed in its wording. If the noble Viscount will refer to Clause 3, subsection (1) (c) (ii) he will observe the words:
"… or for any other purpose connected with the special road or its construction….
I am advised that those words include a power authorising the building of a new road for the use of local traffic which has been excluded from an existing road after it has become part of the special road—which is the sort of case which, I think, the noble Viscount has in mind. That being so, I hope the noble Viscount will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: That was the opinion which I also formed, and as I was given to understand that there was some doubt about it—I do not profess to have any legal knowledge—I am grateful to the noble Earl for confirming what I had suspected. I am quite satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (1) (e):
"other than functions of that authority as local planning authority within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is a little more than drafting. Your Lordships will see that paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Clause 3 is drawn in rather wide terms. The order made authorises the Minister to enable a special road authority to exercise:
"any functions which … would be exercisable by that local authority in relation to the special road."
That might be taken to include planning powers. I cannot believe that the Government who have so recently repealed the restriction on ribbon development would wish to re-introduce it by a side issue,
122
but it is possible that that power could be re-introduced under the clause as it stands. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted, because it certainly makes it clear that town planning remains with the local authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I agree entirely with the noble Viscount that the words "any functions" are too general and require qualification in the way he has suggested. There is no intention that the planning functions should be transferred from the planning authorities to the special road authorities, and this should certainly be made clear in the Bill. We are anxious that those functions should remain with the authorities who are discharging them at the moment Therefore, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I thank the noble Earl for accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (3) to omit the word "a" (where it occurs a second time) and to insert "another." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the four subsequent Amendments are an attempt to improve the English of the Bill. We are trying to eliminate the long and ugly word "alternative" and use instead the shorter and simpler words "a" or "another." I beg to move this first drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("a") and insert ("another").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("alternative").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment is again drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("a") and insert ("another").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("alternative").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This, again, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("an alternative") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided further that, in absence of any such order, the fabric of any bridge over or tunnel under the special road shall be maintained by the special road authority."
The noble Viscount said: The proviso to subsection (4) of this Clause says that
"(except by agreement with that authority) the fabric of any bridge over or tunnel under the special road"
shall not be transferred to any authority—that the responsibility for it shall be retained by the special road authority. In the absence of any specific agreement, it seems necessary to specify where the responsibility rests. The County Councils Association suggest that that should be made clear. It may be that the wording covers this point, but I know from my own experience that some very curious legal positions arise in connection with the maintenance of roads. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am advised that responsibility for the maintenance of a bridge or tunnel built by a special road authority will rest with that authority unless it is transferred by agreement to some other authority, such as a local authority in that neighbourhood. That being so, there is no need to provide in the text of the Bill for the obligation of the special road authority to undertake this sort of work. That is the legal advice I have received. I hope that the noble Viscount will be satisfied that it is correct.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am perfectly satisfied with that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (5) after ("determination") to insert ("by arbitration"). The noble Viscount said: Subsection (5) refers to the payment of contributions by the special road authority to a highway authority. It may well be that the Minister will act as the special road authority. It is thought that in such cases the Minister should not be the judge of his own case and I would suggest that provision should be made for arbitration in such cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, after ("determination") insert ("by arbitration").—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I agree, of course, that the noble Viscount's Amendment makes clear in the text of the Bill that the Minister will not himself be in a position to decide disputes in which he is or may be concerned. The sort of case which I think the noble Viscount has in mind is one in which the highway authority involved in a difference with some other highway authority about a liability for payments—the type of payments mentioned in Clause 3—is the Ministry of Transport. The insertion of the words suggested by the noble Viscount will make it clear that if agreement is not reached between the parties concerned in a matter of this kind the dispute will go to arbitration and will therefore be adjudicated upon by an entirely independent person. I have much pleasure in accepting the noble Viscount's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
4.21 p.m.
Clause 4:
Restriction on laying of mains, etc., in special roads
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the powers conferred on statutory undertakers by or under any enactment to lay down or erect any apparatus on, under or over any land shall not be exercisable in relation to any land comprised in the route of a special road except with the consent of the special road authority:
Provided that the consent of the special road authority shall not be required under this section for the laying down or erection by statutory undertakers of any apparatus by way of renewal of any apparatus for the time being vested in or belonging to them.
(2) The consent of a special road authority under this section may be given subject to

125
conditions, but those conditions shall not include a condition requiring any payment to be made by the undertakers to the special road authority in respect of the exercise of the powers to the exercise of which the consent is given.
(3) Where any apparatus in respect of which the consent of a special road authority is required under this section is to be laid down or erected along a line crossing the route of the special road but not running along that route, that authority—

(a) shall not withhold their consent under this section unless there are special reasons for doing so; and

(b) may, if they give their consent subject to conditions, make contributions to the statutory undertakers in respect of any expenses incurred by them in complying therewith.

(5) Where the consent of a special road authority is required under this section in respect of apparatus to be laid down or erected otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, and the special road authority are a local highway authority, the statutory undertakers may appeal to the Minister against any refusal of that consent or any condition subject to which that consent is granted, and the Minister may make such order as he thinks fit.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "apparatus" (where the word first occurs) to insert "along the line of the route of the special road." The noble Earl said: The purpose of the first two of my Amendments to this clause is to prohibit the laying of pipes and wires along the line of the route of a special road except by way of renewal, and then only to allow the pipes and wires to be laid elsewhere than on the carriageway. The point is that almost everyone connected with roads knows very well the damage which can be done to the road surface by public undertakers who have the power to carry out excavations. Often one sees a perfectly new road surface put down and the water company or the gas company comes along and proceeds to take it up. The subsequent repairs never seem to harmonise with the rest of the road surface and very often a pot-hole or something of that sort, develops; then water collects and that starts road deterioration. It starts off with one pot-hole and then another develops, and so it goes on. In these days, when road maintenance is a burning question and it is not easy to get either labour or materials to make good damage to roads, the laying of pipes and
126
wires under these special roads should not become a common practice, and we should try to avoid the damage which the laying of such pipes and wires does. A subsequent Amendment of mine makes it clear that where pipes and wires have to be laid across a road, it shall be possible to take them through a conduit rather than to dig up the road surface. I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("apparatus") insert ("along the line of the route of the special road").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The effect of these Amendments has been quite correctly described by the noble Earl, in that they would forbid statutory undertakers, such as gas companies or electricity undertakers, from laying new mains or running cables along the line of the route of a special road. This, of course, involves not only the carriageway to the road but the grass verges on each side. As the Bill stands, this can be done by agreement with the highway authority, and surely, if the highway authority think that a gas main can be laid, say along the grass verge of the special road, without interfering with the use of the road, it is fairly safe to say that the gas main and its maintenance will not be a handicap to road users. I cannot help feeling that this Amendment is a little unfair to the statutory undertakers. The whole object of the clause is an attempt to achieve a fair compromise between the demands of public services provided by statutory undertakers on the one hand, and the demands of road users for the services of the special road—the motorway for which the highway authority is responsible—on the other. The interests of the special road users are, I think, fully protected by the clause as it stands. At the same time, statutory undertakers are allowed to do the work they should do in the public interest, and they have the safeguard of appeal against the highway authority in the event of disagreement. If these Amendments were accepted the clause would be hard on the statutory undertakers and would upset that balance which we have tried to strike between the different public interests.
LORD LLEWELLIN: One of the things we require most to do is to prevent the

127
statutory undertakers, often one after another—the gas company first, then the drainage authority and then the electricity company—from coming along and taking up the surface of the highway itself. I have no objection to the laying of pipes or whatever they may be along the grass verges, because then it probably means that the statutory undertakers have not to deal with a number of land owners on the site; they have not to take down some of the woods, or whatever it may be, that adjoin the road and may make it beautiful. The best place for these pipes and lines is along the grass verges, so long as undertakers are not allowed to take them under the metal part of the road except in exceptional circumstances. I appreciate that my noble friend's Amendment may be too wide, but could we have an undertaking from the noble Earl opposite that it will be the policy of the Ministry of Transport not to encourage in any way the laying by statutory undertakers of these lines or pipes under the metal part of the road. The Ministry have a considerable say nowadays in the allocation of labour for road works and in the making of grants towards the cost of re-metalling the roads. Therefore they ought to be in a position to give the road authorities for the special roads, whoever they may be, an instruction in this matter; and in cases where the Ministry are themselves making one of these special roads, they should be able to say that undertakers will not be allowed willy-nilly to put their pipes down the road.
If we could have some assurance of that sort I think it would go a long way—especially if we can get something like an acceptance of the Amendment on this particular point which is down later on in the name of my noble friend, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. The effect of that Amendment is that one of the conditions that can be made is that undertakers shall lay a culvert under the road surface itself, so that the road surface shall not be disturbed. Then all that will be necessary is for someone to pull the pipes out of the culvert and repair them, without damage to the surface of the road at all. That, after all, is the modern way of doing things. We are told that the putting-down of the surface of a road is going to cost a tremendous amount per
128
mile. That is all the more reason why, once it is down, we ought not to allow people, willy-nilly, to interfere with it.
LORD SANDHURST: Before the noble Earl replies, there is one point which I should like to make. I would go further than the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and suggest that there should be a restrictive distance within which no pipe or anything else may be laid along the side of the road. We all know of cases where roads have had to be widened, and, as a result, pipes that previously went along under the grass verge now come at the side of the road. If anything goes wrong the whole road has to be dug up. Similarly, we all know of cases where the Post Office has cables laid, and every time they want to repair the cables they take up the ground; they throw the debris on to the road, making a huge mess and creating an obstruction. So if we are not to allow the Amendment I think a restrictive distance should be imposed to provide that an undertaking must put their works on the extreme outer edge of the land acquired for the purpose of building the road.
EARL HOWE: May I thank the Minister very much for his courtesy? On the Second Reading stage of this Bill he was good enough to send me the proposed layout and design of these new special roads. He sent me particulars, in the course of which it was stated that these roads are to be twin track roads, with a width of 22 feet for each track. The reason I mention this matter is that, in my view, having regard to the width of vehicles to-day, 22 feet is hardly wide enough. The Minister has authorised vehicles of 8 feet width to go on the roads, and a road width of 22 feet allows a very small margin indeed. As traffic increases—and it is possible that in the future the width of vehicles using the road may also increase—the difficulty will be intensified. Clearly, these roads will be used mainly for industrial traffic; they are not intended so much for use by pleasure cars. The reason I mention this is, that if a public undertaking has power to lay pipes not only below the road surface but along the grass verges, there is no doubt that on occasions vehicles will have to stand for considerable periods of time on the road to service these undertakings. By their presence on the road, they will undoubtedly cause considerable obstruction.

129
I do not expect that the noble Earl can accept the Amendment as it stands, and I appreciate his arguments. At the same time, I hope that it will be possible for him to give us some sort of assurance that it will not be the policy of the Ministry of Transport to allow public undertakings to make any large use of these roads in any shape or form. There are occasions, no doubt, when they will have to put works along them. I hope that when they do, for the reasons which have been so ably put forward by my noble friend, they will make use of the grass verges. As I say, I trust that the Minister will be able to give some assurance on the lines asked for by my noble friend Lord Llewellin.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I gladly respond to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for an assurance that it will not be the policy of the Ministry of Transport to encourage, or indeed to allow, the laying of mains underneath the surface of the carriageway of these new special roads. That has never been the intention of the Ministry, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that publicly. I think it would be difficult to meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, by laying down any general rule about the degree of proximity to a motor road at which these mains can be laid. That, surely, is a matter which can best be left to the highway authorities, to be decided on the merits of each particular case. As the noble Lord is aware, from the text of the Bill, it is open to a highway authority to object and to forbid a statutory undertaker to lay a gas main, or whatever it may be, if the authority thinks that the work will interfere with the use of the road.
EARL HOWE: I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the assurances which the noble Earl has just given. They do not seem to me to be sufficiently specific in their character. However, in the circumstances, I do not feel like pressing this Amendment, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out subsections (21 and (3) and to insert:
"(2) (a) The powers conferred on statutory undertakers by or under any enactment to lay down or erect any apparatus on, under or
130
over land shall not be exercisable except for the purpose of crossing the route of the special road and the special road authority may require, as a condition of giving their consent, that the apparatus shall be laid in a culvert or subway provided for that purpose under the special road so that the statutory undertakers may be able to maintain renew alter or add to their apparatus without interfering with the special road.
(b) The special road authority may if they give their consent for the purposes of this section make contributions to the statutory undertakers in respect of any expenses incurred by them in complying therewith."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to permit the laying of pipes and the like by public undertakers across the line of route of a special road, provided that they are laid in a culvert or a subway. I need not stress the importance of that particular point. Rut another matter arises in this connection. These roads are to be special roads; they are to carry very heavy industrial traffic, and no doubt the foundations of these roads will be very special indeed. If it should by any chance become necessary to interfere with the foundations, I think it would be a matter of great difficulty, from an engineering point of view, to get them back into their original state. Therefore, I think this Amendment is of considerable importance, and I hope that the noble Earl will find it possible to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The next Amendment standing in my name covers part of the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Earl. Lord Llewellin has explained already what is in our minds in putting forward these Amendments. It seems to us reasonable to require a statutory undertaking so to arrange its apparatus that in repairing, renewing or adding to its services, the road which it crosses is not disturbed. Clearly, it would be most undesirable, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has explained, if statutory undertakers had to damage the surface of the road. Though it may be rather more expensive to begin with, I think that in the long run it would be an economy if special arrangements were made on the lines laid down in the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Lord for speaking on the noble Earl's Amendment. I think his subsequent Amendment covers very much the same point. We have every sympathy with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord and the noble Earl. We do not want any of these statutory undertakers to lay mains which, either in the laying or in their subsequent use, will interfere with the surface of the road. That is why, having foreseen this potential difficulty, we have already provided in the Bill that highway authorities should be in a position to guard against it. We had hoped that our proposals would satisfy noble Lords opposite. If noble Lords will look at Clause 4 (2), they will agree, I hope, that it is directed to this specific eventuality. The subsection begins:
"The consent of a special road authority under this section may be given subject to conditions, but those conditions …"
I will not read the rest of the subsection. I would point out that one of the conditions might very well be such a condition as is mentioned by the noble Earl in his Amendment, and by the noble Lord in his subsequent one. I think it is more satisfactory for the highway authority to have this general power to attach conditions than to specify the particular conditions which may be attached. I think it is both satisfactory from his point of view and from the point of view of the Bill. It would be extremely difficult to include in the Bill all the conditions which any or every highway authority might properly think should be attached to their consent to the operations of the statutory undertaking.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I realise the difficulty about putting one condition into a Bill, and not including all possible conditions but I think the noble Earl was a little weak in his statement that this "might very well be one of the conditions."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is the intention that this is the sort of condition which will be attached.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is better. We are trying to say from this side that this is the common-sense thing to do in every case. Nowadays, great thicknesses of concrete form the foundations of a road, and when anything has to be done,
132
along comes a machine that reminds you of a dentist's chair to grind it up. We would like it much more definitely known that it is the policy of the Minister to see that where there are Post Office lines, or a drainage authority's pipes or an electric undertaking's underground cables, these shall go in small tunnels, so that lines can be added to or repaired without taking up the whole road surface. Although it may not be appropriate to put in one condition while not putting in others, I would like it to be said that in every possible case the policy of the Ministry and of the special road authority will be to insist that this be done. Otherwise we shall be doing once again what was done throughout the streets of London. That was done years ago, and it cannot be helped now, but in future we should see that we have a better policy. Culverts should be provided as they are in the German autobahnen. Though I did not admire much in Germany, I have to admit that the construction of the roads was very good.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I certainly give the noble Lord the assurance he desires. It is the policy of the Minister that the apparatus of statutory undertakings should be laid in culverts or some sort of tunnels which will prevent interference with the surface of the roadway.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: If the noble Earl prefers that the words are not included, and on the undertaking he has given, I shall be willing not to move my Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Under the circumstances I am only too glad to withdraw my Amendment, and to thank the noble Earl for his reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (5), after "Minister" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
"after the special road authority has had an opportunity of considering the grounds of and making representations upon such appeal."
The noble Viscount said: I am advised that in its present form subsection (5) would enable statutory undertakers to appeal against a refusal of consent by a special road authority without acquainting the special road authority of the grounds of their appeal, or even the fact of their appeal; and the Minister

133
might decide without reference to the special road authority. If that is so, it seems to me wrong, because the Minister would be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. It may be, of course, that my advice is wrong, in which case I should be perfectly content with an assurance from the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, after ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I hope I can satisfy the noble Viscount that his advice is wrong. Ministers do not really behave in that way. If a statutory undertaking appeals to the Minister against the refusal of consent by the special road authority, the Minister will obviously have to hear both sides before he makes up his mind and reaches a decision. He cannot make up his mind when he has heard only one party in the case. I have no doubt he will listen to any representations that a special road authority will make during the hearing of an appeal. I do not feel, therefore, that there is any need to specify in the Bill the sort of safeguard which the noble Viscount suggests for the special road authority.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I thank the noble Earl, and apologise for any unworthy suspicions that the County Councils' Association entertained of the Minister of Transport. Perhaps that was due to the very large powers which Ministers are continuing to take over the operations of local authorities! I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Private rights of access]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The five Amendments to Clause 7 are all drafting Amendments, and with your Lordships' permission, and to save time, I shall move all these Amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("alternative") and insert ("new").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("a") and insert ("other").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("alternative").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("alternative") and insert ("new").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agree to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
4.49 p.m.
Clause 10:
Additional powers of acquiring land for special roads.
10.—(1) The power of a highway authority under section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, to acquire land for the purpose of the construction or improvement of any road shall, in relation to special roads, include power to acquire—

(a) any land which in the opinion of the authority will be required for the improvement of an existing road which is included in the route of a special road but has not been transferred to that authority by an order under section three of this Act;

(b) any land (including land lying more than two hundred and twenty yards from the middle of the special road) which in the opinion of the authority is required for the purposes of an order under the said section three, or for the provision of service stations or other buildings or facilities to be used in connection with the construction of a special road, or the use or maintenance thereof.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (1) (a) to omit "in the opinion of the authority." The noble Lord said: I have agreed with my noble friend Lord Cranworth that his Amendment and mine should be debated together, if that is for the convenience of the House. Therefore, since his Amendment is rather more comprehensive than mine, I will formally move my Amendment and leave my noble friend to conduct the first part of the debate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("in the opinion of the authority").—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
LORD CRANWORTH: My Amendment to omit paragraph (b) will be no

135
surprise to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, because I indicated strongly on Second Reading that the totalitarian powers conferred upon the special road authority might give a loophole for a further raping of our already limited and most valuable agricultural land. As your Lordships will see, the special road authority have power at their own discretion to take land for all purposes—because "facilities" is a pretty wide and elastic term. When I read it, I asked myself two questions, both of which I have been asked several times since; and the answer is not clear to me. The first is a very simple question: Who in fact is the road authority? If the answer is that the road authority is the Minister, that would probably be legally correct; but it would not be correct in fact, because no one would suggest that the Minister will go up and down these roads looking for agricultural land, as to the value of which he might have very little knowledge. I suggest that the road authority will in all probability be a highly-placed official in the Ministry of Transport, with great knowledge of engineering and of transport problems. But with regard to agricultural production he might well know nothing—and, possibly, provided that his own stomach was reasonably full, he might care less. It seems to be desirable, therefore, that we should have an answer to that question.
The other question is: For what purpose are these totalitarian powers desired? I have thought carefully over the matter and tried to find the answer by reference to what took place in another place. The only suggestion that appeals to me is that it might be for the purpose of some bridge or tunnel to cross these special roads. Even so, I find it hard to imagine that there can be many—if any—places where such a tunnel or bridge should be more than a quarter of a mile, which, after all, is a generous allowance. But if it is anticipated that there will be cases of that sort, I should have thought that it could be inserted in the Bill, rather than to give a general and complete liberty to the road authority to take what land they wish. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, showed in his Second Reading speech, I am sure, quite sincerely, that the interests of agriculture and food production are well in his mind, and I would
136
appeal to him to make his sincerity obvious by accepting this Amendment. I do not particularly care about the form of words, but I do desire it to be made clear in some way that the road authority will not have power to take either a large or small portion of agricultural land which might not be necessary.
EARL HOWE: I have great sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. The Minister gave me details of the construction of the roads a few days ago. The roads are to have twin 22-feet carriage tracks, with a 15-feet verge between the tracks and a 15-feet verge on either side of the road. According to my simple mathematics, working from the centre of the road, that means that 44-feet will be required. But in the Bill the Minister has taken power to take land 220 yards—that is, 660 feet—from the centre of the road.
LORD CRANWORTH: And beyond it.
EARL HOWE: If the Minister could say what this provision is intended to meet, one might understand it. But I cannot understand how it can be connected with the road, unless it is to provide for the approaches to a bridge, or the like. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give us further information on this than has been given hitherto.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: First, I will answer the two questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. I understand that there is always, as a matter of departmental routine—of course, with the full authority of the Ministers concerned—a consultation between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport before any land is acquired for a new road. The other question asked by the noble Lord was: What authority other than the Ministry of Transport is meant by the word "authority" in this clause? The other authorities concerned would be county councils; they would not be authorities other than county councils. As the noble Lord is aware, the highway authorities concerned in this Bill are either the Ministry of Transport or the county councils. I can assure the noble Lord that we do not want to interfere unnecessarily with the interests of agriculture. I told him that before, and I know he accepts it.

137
Another thing which, as a matter of principle, we do not want to do—whatever any noble Lord may think to the contrary—is to take or seek wider powers than are absolutely necessary to achieve the purposes of the Bill. Let me now address myself to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this clause, which is the paragraph the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, wishes to omit. I am told that the omission of this paragraph would make the Bill unworkable, because it would be impossible for a special road authority to acquire land for ancillary side roads which would be an essential part of the special roads layout. I would direct the noble Lord's attention to the two purposes under paragraph (b) for which land can be acquired in connection with the construction of a special road. The first is for the purpose of an order under Clause 3 of the Bill. In connection with works authorised by an order under this clause, if paragraph (b) were omitted, it would be impossible for the highway authority to put into operation an effective special roads scheme.
I should like now to give two illustrations of why in many cases land will be required at a distance of more than 220 yards from the centre of the special road. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me if I could illustrate what was in the mind of those responsible for this Bill. I rather wish I had a blackboard, because I feel I could then illustrate much more vividly, and certainly more to my own satisfaction, what I mean. However, I will do my best to give a couple of verbal illustrations. One case is where a motorway runs alongside a slope, and a side road runs up and down the slope. The fall of the ground away from the motorway will mean that, in order to bring the side road over the motorway and back on to the level of the lower slope, the side road will have to be regraded for a long distance to avoid too steep a climb on the approach of the bridge over the motor road. Therefore, the start of the approach to the bridge will be a long distance from the carriageway of the special road. That is one instance.
Another instance is where there are two side roads crossing the route of a motorway within quite a short distance of each other. The obvious way to deal with these two side roads is to stop up one and to put a bridge over the road
138
or a tunnel under the road, in order to enable traffic to continue to use this method of getting across the motor road. Now let us suppose that these two side roads are already connected on either side of the motor way. Then the existing stretch of road which connects the two side roads can be used, instead of building new roads to take the traffic from the road which is stopped on to the road which is still in use, by means of a bridge which goes over the special road or by a tunnel which goes under it. But, of course, this connecting piece of road may be quite a considerable distance—up to a quarter of a mile or further—from the special road. In order to improve it and make it capable of taking the larger flow of traffic, it may be essential for the highway authority to acquire a piece of land on the side of the road so that it may be widened and improved.
Those are two illustrations which show why it will be necessary, in certain cases, for highway authorities to acquire land at some distance from the special roads. The second case provided for in paragraph (b) is for the building of various premises in connection with the construction of a special road, inch as a petrol station, café or depôot for vehicles to use for the maintenance of the road. It may be convenient that these premises should be sited on a side road connected with the special road at a junction—not right on the road itself.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that the essential thing, from the point of view of the traffic which is to use the special road, is to see that the side roads are connected up in a way which will lead to the efficient and proper use of the special road. Therefore, that is the first purpose—orders under Clause 3 for the construction of these side roads—for which this power is essential. On the other hand, I feel there is a great deal of strength in the view which has been expressed in the Committee this afternoon and, I think, in another place, that the power of taking land beyond a distance of 220 yards from the centre of the road, without any limit to that distance, is unsatisfactory and vague, and might possibly lead to misuse. If your Lordships desire me to do so, with the help of my advisers I will before the next stage consider the possibility of including an Amendment which would lay down that land beyond a certain distance from

139
the centre of the road could not be acquired, even for the purposes of paragraph (b) of this clause.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: We are glad to know that the noble Earl is able to give us some assurance that this clause will be reconsidered. It is quite certain that the noble Earl's intentions towards agriculture are of the highest kind, but we must remember that we are dealing with people who are enthusiasts and have not perhaps the same direct interest in agriculture as has the noble Earl. From what I know of road engineers, they have excellent qualities, but they think more of the road than the land they are to disturb. From the point of view of agriculture, I think it would be a bad thing if this clause remained in its present wide state. It seems to us that the road authority can take any land they require, however remote.
I ask the noble Earl, when he is considering the redrafting of this clause, to consider the Amendment which I have put down to leave out the words "in the opinion of the authority." I notice the noble Viscount the Leader of the House shaking his head. I do not think it is an immoderate Amendment. I was just going to explain to the noble Viscount—who knows more about it than I do—that the taking out of those words means merely that we go back to the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919 (which perhaps he was instrumental in introducing), and that the matter goes to arbitration and is not decided purely on the ipse dixit of the special authority. I should be sorry if the noble Earl, in reconsidering the drafting, were to be stopped by the Leader of the House from considering these Amendments. I hope he will keep an open mind, so that when the matter is considered on the next occasion we may have an assurance that there will not be an extravagant use of land and that those affected shall have the right to put their case to some form of arbitration.
LORD CRANWORTH: May I thank the noble Earl for his reply and the consideration he has given to this Amendment? I would also like to congratulate him on the fact that he has caused me astonishment. I thought I was much too old to be astonished, but he
140
did astonish me when he told me that some county councils might be called upon to provide these roads, because they would be the road authority. I thought the main roads were being taken away from county councils. They certainly have been in my county, and it is an astonishment to me to know that possibly we may be called upon to provide a special road. I look upon that with a certain amount of alarm.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it would be wise to look at this matter again, and perhaps we may have consultations together between now and the Report stage. The noble Earl says that there is always consultation between the officials of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture on these matters, but the clause gives these powers to the highway authority; therefore it need not necessarily be done at all through the Ministry of Transport. Let us realise that point to start with. We are giving the highway authority extremely wide powers at a time when everybody is saying that we should increase our food production and encourage agriculture. Therefore, we must make the powers as narrow as we can while leaving them effective for their purpose. The clause refers to "any land." The reference to 220 yards from the middle of the road is rather a rod herring and is only inserted in order to show that, despite the Ribbon Development Act, the authority can put up a service station or a café within the area of land which otherwise would be covered by that Act. In the case of the land dealt with under paragraph (a) the area need not be of so wide an extent as is provided by the Bill, because that is only land needed for the road itself. In the case of land dealt with under the first part of paragraph (b), however, there may be more to be said for a wider area, for the reasons the noble Earl gave—the diversion of subsidiary roads. It may be necessary to divert those roads because of the provision of the new special roads.
There is yet a third point to bear in mind when we are considering this clause, and it is that here we are giving power to the special road authority to acquire land compulsorily for service stations and for other buildings or facilities along these roads. The normal procedure was that such service stations and

141
so forth were acquired as by a willing buyer from a willing seller—provided the necessary town planning permission was obtained. That was the old way of doing things. It is getting rather into the controversial field (I am not saying the political controversial field) if someone selects for compulsory purchase for a service station, or whatever it may be, a piece of A's farm rather than a piece of B's farm, just because someone thinks A's land provides a better site than B's land. When you are proceeding in this way and not relying upon the old method of voluntary arrangement you are getting rather into a new sphere. I hope the noble Earl will consider these points when we come to see how far this clause can be improved so as not to discourage agriculture and yet to give wide enough powers to these people to make the proper road and connecting roads.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Of course I will bear in mind very carefully and fully what the noble Lord has just said. But I cannot say that I can hold out great encouragement—indeed I should be misleading the noble Lord if I said I could—about the omission of the words: "in the opinion of the authority." The point surely is that somebody has, to decide what amount of land is required for widening a road or improving it in some other way. The body to decide this in the first instance is the highway authority; and that is the authority whose opinion is mentioned in this clause. I cannot see how you can do without that spark to ignite the train. The noble Lord is, nevertheless, completely protected, I think, by the normal procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land. As he knows, notice is given to all concerned; objections are lodged if any owner wishes to do so; there is then a public inquiry, and ultimately the scheme has to be confirmed by the Minister. I believe there are cases in which a scheme may come before Parliament. Those safeguards would, I think, meet the noble Lord's point without removing something which is essential to the satisfactory working of these special road schemes. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion of their suggestions, and I will see that those suggestions are adequately considered before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved to add to the clause as a new subsection:
"( ) Where land is acquired for the purpose of a special road and compensation would be payable in respect of any severance or injurious affection, the special road authority shall provide accommodation works for the avoidance of the said severance or injurious affection unless it is unreasonable so to do."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to place the onus on the special road authority to provide accommodation works, unless it is unreasonable so to do. It may be cheaper in the short run to pay compensation for severance; but in the long run, when you are dealing with land, particularly agricultural land, the loss which may arise from severance, and the disturbance caused by severance, may be so serious to the owner or occupier that it will be more economical to provide accommodation by giving access in some way—and the road authority will naturally give due attention to economy. Therefore, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would look at this Amendment and, if possible, accept it—or suggest something like it which would give effect to these ideas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord De Lisle and Dudley.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There are I think two difficulties about this Amendment. I emphasised them when the question of providing accommodation works rather than monetary compensation was raised during the Second Reading. In the first place, this is a matter that arises in all cases of severance caused by the building of roads. It applies generally. It would, I think, be quite 'wrong to deal with a special case, the case of motorways and special roads, as distinct from all the other roads in the county which are affected by this procedure. The code of compensation is one that has given general satisfaction, and I feel that the onus is on the noble Lord opposite to show that there has been among those affected any general complaint about the present procedure. Unless agreement is secured, the claims of those

143
affected by severance, or who suffer injurious affection, are referred to independent arbitration. In assessing the claim the arbitrator takes into account the fact that the highway authority may not agree to provide accommodation works.
Of course, the amount awarded may be in excess of the cost of the accommodation works, if the arbitrator thinks that that is right and proper, but I understand the usual practice is for the highway authority to provide the accommodation works. It is obvious that they are in a better position to do so than the tenant or the landlord, as they have the men and the equipment with which to build the "creep" or whatever it may be. I am told that it is very rare for negotiations with owners to break down on the question of the form which compensation is to take; as a general rule they are perfectly satisfied and there is no need to go to arbitration, because they feel that the proposal made by the highway authority is reasonable. I think that these two points make it extremely difficult to alter the principle of compensation which is at present applied generally in cases of severance. I hope that the noble Lord on consideration will share that view.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In my view, there is a considerable distinction between these roads and the ordinary highways because, as I understand it, the whole purpose of these new roads is to keep an even flow of important motor traffic without its being impeded unnecessarily by other roads crossing, by lights or by anything else of that sort. Therefore, it is a different kind of road from the ordinary road on to which the farmer can always drive his cattle to get them across from one side of his farm to the other. I gather that in the case of these roads there will not be any accommodation gates, and the whole idea will be not to have cattle driven across them. That is how I visualise the general conception of the scheme. These special roads are becoming more like the railways; for farmers are never allowed, and never have been allowed, to drive their cattle across the railway, except at the proper gates. When the railways were planned, accommodation arches or crossings were always built, so that a person could take his agricultural carts and his cattle and sheep across the railway without having
144
to drive them miles around. Surely, these special roads are rather different from the old type. That is the point I would make, because there will be many more of these special roads where it will be almost essential, if we are not to divide a farm completely in two, to give these special facilities, rather than merely pay compensation, which indeed will not meet the case.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly consider carefully what both the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, have said on this point. If anything can be done, I will make a further proposal on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving us that very qualified assurance. On the understanding that the matter will be looked at, and possibly discussed through the usual channels, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
Clause 12:
Provisions as to use of special roads
(2) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the use of special roads, and such regulations may, in particular—
(b) authorise the crossing of such roads by traffic, other than such traffic as aforesaid, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations;
(c) authorise, or enable such authority as may be specified in the regulations to authorise, the use of such roads, on occasion or in emergency or for the purpose of securing access to premises abutting on or adjacent to the roads, by traffic other than such traffic as aforesaid, or relax or enable any such authority as aforesaid to relax any prohibition or restriction imposed by the regulations;
and such regulations may make provision with respect to special roads generally, or may make different provision with respect to special roads provided for the use of different classes of traffic, or may make provision with respect to any particular special road.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved, in subsection (1) after "behalf" to insert "by a scheme." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting

145
Amendment. It seems to be clearer if the words "by a scheme" are inserted after the word "behalf" at page 12, line 26. We see on page 2, Clause 2, that
"Different classes of traffic may be prescribed by a scheme under section one of this Act. …"
It seems to make it clearer if the words that I propose to insert are included in Clause 12. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, after ("behalf") insert ("by a scheme").—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think that his words do make the sentence clearer.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DE LISLE AND DUDLEY: I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, after ("behalf") insert ("by a scheme").—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to omit paragraph (b) of subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment I propose to move to line 39 of this clause. I think I had better explain what the subsequent Amendment sets out to do. That Amendment will authorise the crossing of special roads by unauthorised traffic. If that Amendment is accepted, then paragraph (b) of subsection (2) will be unnecessary. I hope your Lordships will consider the merit of such an Amendment in order that I may move this Amendment in its proper place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SANDHURST: I want to be certain that the noble Earl is not doing rather more than he intends. So far as I can see, the effect of this Amendment and the subsequent one will be to enable permission be given for traffic of the type which is authorised to use the road up and down in one direction to go across it. That strikes me as being undesirable. I think it should be limited to special traffic for special occasions. I am not sure that this Amendment does not go a little
146
further than the noble Earl and his advisers intend. Could the noble Earl look at it again with that in view?
EARL HOWE: I have down two Amendments which follow this Amendment. They are intended as a substitute for the action which the noble Earl proposes to take. I do not wart to put myself hopelessly out of order by trying to discuss them at this particular moment. The whole question of crossing these special roads is one fraught with the greatest possible difficulty, because, if there are to be crossings, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, the roads will become rather like railways. To have an unregulated crossing of one of these special roads is really to produce on occasion conditions of extreme danger. It will be necessary to have some sort of signalling device, and it is likely, or at least possible, that such a device may fail or go wrong. I do not think that mere notices or notice boards alongside the roads, or marks across them, will be nearly safe enough. We are in a bit of a tangle over this matter, because the operative Amendment, apparently, is the one following on my two Amendments. I do not know whether the Committee would think it convenient that I should deal with my two Amendments now.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
EARL HOWE: Then I will go ahead with my two Amendments. The purpose of my two Amendments, as I say, is that they should be considered together as substitutes for the Government's Amendments which propose to leave out paragraph (b) and amend paragraph (c). The effect of the substitutes is to retain paragraph (b) and confine the crossing of the motorways to an emergency; also to reject paragraph (c) and confine the crossing to green tracks needed for access to premises. It is suggested that this would be preferable to the action proposed to be taken by the Minister. I recognise that emergency crossings might be necessary, when special precautions would have to be taken to slow down or otherwise control vehicles but it would be far too dangerous to allow crossings on other occasions. Therefore, I submit that before the decision is taken on the Minister's Amendment he should tell us a little more as to his attitude with regard to the ques-

147
tion of crossings as a whole. I think this is most important, and I hope he will be able to give us some specific assurance about it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I take it the noble Earl was speaking to the first of his two Amendments?
EARL HOWE: I was speaking to both.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have no objection, but I do not think he developed his argument fully. However, that is his responsibility and not mine. May I make a reply in regard to the noble Earl's Amendment? What I think he wants to do is to limit the power of authorising unauthorised traffic—in the form of pedestrians, farm carts or whatever it may be which will not be authorised to use the special roads; it will not be the fast moving type of traffic which the special road will, as a rule, take—to cross from one side to the other of the motorways solely to emergency occasions. Those are the particular conditions he wishes to attach to the crossing of the roads by unauthorised traffic. In the first place, we do not like the limitation to motorways of the right to cross. There are other classes of special roads. For instance, a footpath can also be a special road, if the motorway had a footpath, and for this purpose we include certain classes (Classes I, IV and IX) as authorised traffic for the special roads. Class IX is pedestrian traffic. They would use the footpath and motor vehicles would use the motorway. The term "special road" is much wider than "motorway," and I do not think the noble Earl was aware of that fact when he drafted his Amendment.
The second and really important thing to which I think his mind was directed is that the crossing of a motorway by pedestrians should be limited to an emergency. He wants it done only in the case of a real emergency. But if this power to allow pedestrians—unauthorised traffic—to cross these motorways were to be used, there would be the need to provide a regular crossing place for pedestrians under special safety provisions prescribed by a regulation. It would be very rarely required; but it would not be used only in emergency because it would be a regular crossing place.
148
The sort of thing that the Department has in mind is a long stretch of straight road with rather little traffic. Provided that there are proper safety devices, there is no reason why an occasional pedestrian (say in the heart of the country, where there is much less traffic than in the neighbourhood of a town) should not be able to cross this flat straight road at a given point. That is the sort of case for which this authorisation is required. It will be required only rarely; that is recognised. Safety precautions would have to be laid down in each particular case, and each particular case will require a regulation which will have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether it is proposed that these emergency pedestrian crossings shall be completely unregulated, and that the pedestrians will be able to go across without giving a signal or anything of that sort to approaching traffic on the road? The noble Earl said that it is going to be done in places where traffic will be very thin. These special roads, if and when they come into being, are likely to become the main arteries of traffic of the country. At present on A.5—and everybody knows Watling Street—there are as many as 5,000 vehicles a day. There will be a very heavy concentration of traffic on these special roads, and if the unregulated pedestrian, even in very rare cases, launches himself out on to a sea of traffic of that sort, one can envisage the danger of the position. I do not know how the noble Earl proposes to regulate it. Can he say whether his Department proposes to install some form of signals or lights or other devices?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, there would be safety provisions which would be specified in the regulations, so that if anyone in your Lordships' House or in another place considered that they were unsatisfactory and that the crossing was dangerous—that the pedestrian was not sufficiently protected by the safety provisions—then objection could be lodged. But it is not an emergency provision; it is one that, if Parliament approves, will be a regular day-to-day practice. The emergency provision is one that is only brought in as a result of some event like the blocking or flooding of a road for a short time. But this, if it were done,

149
would be a continuous thing, and it would be done in rare cases where there might be a hardship to pedestrians which could otherwise easily be avoided. It would certainly never be done in the certain cases which the noble Earl had in mind—that of a motorway with a constant flow of fast-moving traffic which would obviously be a danger to the pedestrian or an inconvenience to the traffic if it had to be held up.
LORD ELTON: This matter seems to be very obscure. Are not all these motorways specially designed to carry a heavy and regular stream of traffic? If, as the noble Earl says, we are talking about something which is to be a regular provision and not an emergency provision, it becomes all the more important, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe said, that your Lordships should have some idea of the sort of safety provision that is to be made for the pedestrian. I am not at all clear on this point. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us anything more about it? I understood Lord Howe to put a very direct question on that point, and I cannot quite gather that he has had a reply.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I, too, was slightly mystified by the noble Earl's remark that it would be on a special road which was not heavily used by traffic, or words to that effect. I must confess that I see these special roads as being built because there is a need for the passage of a great deal of traffic, and I should have thought that, although obviously in the neighbourhood of big towns there would be more traffic, the object was not to provide local facilities but to provide through roads on which there was a great deal of traffic passing, at any rate in the hours of daylight. Perhaps the noble Earl could throw a little more light on his remark, because I should hate to think that special roads were going to be built to cope with conditions other than those I have mentioned.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The general rule will be that these roads will be used much too intensively and that there will be much too large a flow of traffic, travelling far too fast, for pedestrians to be able to cross the surface of the road itself. The general rule would be that where pedestrians have
150
to cross they will go either over or under the road. But this provision is made primarily for exceptional cases, and it seems a pity to make it impossible to provide for exceptional cases should they arise. That is all that is desired here. The safety provision to which the noble Lord, Lora Elton, has spoken would be specified in the regulation, which of course would be subject to Parliamentary approval. I can obtain more information about the sort of provision which highway authorities have in mind for inclusion in a regulation that they might make for this purpose, and that information I will obtain before the next stage of the Bill.
EARL HOWE: Will the noble Earl, at the next stage of the Bill please give us some sort of idea of what system of regulation there will be governing the use of the crossing? Are you going to have a system of signalling? If so, what system of signalling? I do not ask for that information now—no doubt it would be very inconvenient to get it now—but perhaps it can be obtained later. If we could be told at the next stage, it would relieve anxiety. I feel that the safety of a number of people may be involved. This provision may be very dangerous. As I say, I shall be guile satisfied if the noble Earl can tell us about this when the next stage is reached
LORD ELTON: I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I hope very much that we may have a good deal of further information. I must confess that I am still (perhaps it is my own fault) almost completely in the dark as to what are all these exceptional stretches of road and as to whether the safety provisions, of which we are to be further apprised at a later stage, are to be at all of a permanent character—signals or the like. It seems to me strange that they should be provided in relation to a stretch of road the traffic on which may vary greatly from year to year, or even from month to month. You may take a stretch of road which carries exceptionally light traffic at one moment and make some rather sketchy provision for pedestrian crossings. Six months later you may find that the traffic has thickened considerably; your provision for the safety of pedestrians may be entirely unsuitable for the thicker traffic, and you may be holding up the long

151
distance traffic for which the road was designed. I think we are still very much in the dark on these points, and I hope that we shall certainly get further enlightenment at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment is consequential to the earlier Amendment to omit paragraph (b), at page 12, line 34. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, after ("of") insert ("crossing, or for the purpose of").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 44, leave out ("and such regulations") and insert ("(3) Regulations made under this section").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SELSDON LORD SELSDON moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that any regulation with respect to the crossing of any such road shall restrict the use of such road for the purpose of crossing to such hours of the day as may be appointed by the special road authority and shall require such authority to exhibit signs in prescribed positions on such road warning the drivers of vehicles proceeding along such road towards such crossing to reduce their speed to a specified number of miles per hour during the appointed hours."
The noble Lord said: We have already had a certain amount of discussion on the subject of crossings on these motorways. I think we have rather got away from the question of exactly what the motorways are designed for. Are they to be, so to speak, anyone's "pigeon," to cross where they wish and to go where they like; or are they not? I understand that in certain cases, where the motorways run through farm lands, it may well happen that farm buildings will be on one side of the road and the cattle may be grazing on the other. In such a case it would be necessary for the cattle to cross the road to be milked. Clearly, it would not be practicable to build a bridge or a subway in an isolated part of the country.
I submit that in this connection a very good system is in use in America. I
152
will tell your Lordships how it works in relation to schools. A quarter of an hour before the children go into or out of school, a sign is put up covering a clearly defined area 200 yards on either side of the school, and in accordance with the notice on that sign all traffic has to slow down to 10 miles an hour during that period. The onus is then on the driver. That surely could be done in exceptional cases in this country, in clearly defined places where cattle could cross only at a particular spot. The times at which it is necessary for the cattle to cross will be known, and the necessary arrangement could easily be made. The period of reduced speed would probably not amount to more than an hour a day on that particular road. It would. I suggest, save money. I cannot see why anyone should reasonably expect to be allowed to wander about the place when there are clearly defined crossing places. The main question is to whom is this road going to belong? Is it going to be the special province of the motor car, or will it be permissible for any Tom, Dick or Harry to wander all over the place at will? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 47, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Selsdon.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was much interested to hear the noble Lord quote the example of the system which is used in the United States which, of course, is one of the countries which have these motor roads. I think that the fact that they can allow pedestrians on occasions to cross them shows that it can be done, and indeed that provision should be made for doing it. So far as the noble Lord's Amendment goes, of course we are in complete sympathy with him about the need for safeguards for the pedestrian. If such crossings are allowed, the safeguards which he has mentioned—such as allowing the roads to be crossed only at certain hours of the day or night, and erecting warning signs for motor drivers—are the sort of safeguards which would be included in a regulation made for this purpose; a specific regulation will be made for each particular case. But I think it would be dangerous to insert provisions in the Bill which would render the authorities unable to take into account the circumstances of each particular case that will arise. In some cases

153
measures such as the noble Lord has suggested may be suitable, but in other cases they may not. We feel it is much better to leave this matter to be dealt with in the regulations when they are framed—those regulations, of course, will be subject to the approval of Parliament—and not to have in the Bill any more general provisions which might cut across provisions which it may be desirable to insert in the regulations.
EARL HOWE: The noble Lord has said that regulations will be made in each specific case. Does that mean that there will be different regulations? Shall we, for instance, have crossing A at a certain point, wherever it is, with one set of regulations, and crossing B, very similar in character, at another point, with quite different regulations? It seems to me that if that is to be the case it will be extraordinarily difficult for everyone properly to understand this matter. Perhaps the noble Earl may tell us that there are going to be standard regulations. If we are to have these pedestrian crossings, does he mean that the regulations will vary according to the different crossings, or will they keep to some standard?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I tried to make it clear that there should be no standard regulations. What may be necessary for safety in one part of the country—that is in England or Wales—may not provide sufficiently for safety in another part, or in Scotland. We have to take into consideration all the particular circumstances of the particular grossing of the particular road in the particular place.
LORD SELSDON: Could the noble Earl tell me this? If a pedestrian makes an unauthorised crossing of one of these motorways, and is involved in a collision with a vehicle, would the driver (or his insurance company) be responsible for the accident? I am speaking of a case in which the pedestrian is not authorised to cross but is merely jay-walking.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Then of course he would be at fault. I think that is quite clear.
LORD SELSDON: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This next Amendment is consequential on a later Amendment which I propose to move to the Interpretation Clause, Clause 21, in order to define the word "use" in relation to a road as including "crossing." If your Lordships accept this expansion of the word "use," then the words "or crosses" in this clause are plainly unnecessary. I do not think this is a controversial matter, and I think I can confidently recommend your Lordships to accept this consequential Amendment now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("or crosses").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Adaptation of certain trunk road orders
15.—(1) The provisions of this Act (except subsections (1) and (2) of Section nine) shall apply in relation to the roads described in the Third Schedule to this Act (being roads which are trunk roads by virtue of orders made under Section one of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946) as if they were special roads to be provided by the Minister in pursuance of schemes made under Section one of this Act for the use of traffic of the classes specified in the third column of that Schedule.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: When the Bill passed through another place, it was pointed out that under this subsection the Minister would apparently have power to convert certain roads—namely, trunk roads—to special roads, without any inquiry, for which an elaborate procedure is laid down in the First Schedule of the Bill. It is true that the Minister in another place pointed out that when inquiries were held under another Act and at an earlier date, a warning was given that these trunk roads might at some future date fall under the provisions of such a Bill as your Lordships are now discussing, if it were presented to Parliament and passed. But that hypothetical warning, given at an earlier date, and under another Act, and in a very different context, hardly seems sufficient. As this Bill is at present worded, it appears that a trunk road can be converted into a special road automatically, without any inquiry and without local interests being able to put forward their objections to the very various inconveniences

155
in which they may find themselves suddenly involved. The Minister in another place said he would make a statement on Report stage, clearing up this point. So far as I can make out—and I speak subject to the correction of the noble Earl, who will be able to put me right—that statement has not been made. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us a little more about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Elton.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension about the procedure which has been already followed in the case of these trunk roads. I shall be glad to explain it. The effect of his Amendment would be to render it necessary to make a scheme under the Bill or an order specified in the Third Schedule, which gives the route of four trunk roads which have already been approved by order under the Trunk Roads Act of 1946. There have been already public inquiries in three out of four orders; in the case of the fourth there was no public inquiry because no objection had been lodged. In the three other cases it was made clear in the course of the inquiries that those roads were being considered for construction as motorways, with all the restrictions which such construction would entail, and no objections were raised by any of the bodies or private persons present. It therefore seems unnecessary to hold any further public inquiries into these proposals for building those roads as motorways instead of building them as trunk roads, which was the original intention.
The effect of making provision for them in the form of schemes under the Bill would be to delay their construction for possibly as much as two years and it would also involve a great deal of expense and time on the part of the Government officials and local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that, as these roads have already been subjected to exactly the procedure that will be used in the case of other roads authorised under schemes provided for in the Bill, it cannot be said that those whose property is in any way affected by the roads have not already had an ample opportunity of airing their views on the subject.
LORD ELTON: I would be the last person to wish to delay the construction of one of these roads if one is ever taken in hand. I must confess I still feel it is rather unlikely that persons, who were told in 1946 that at sonic future date there might be a Bill turning the trunk road they were discussing into a special road, and that they had better put in any caveats in which they might be interested, were as well placed for voicing their objections as they would be if they had an opportunity of putting them forward in relation to this Bill. But in view of what the noble Earl has said, I do not wish to press my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Financial provisions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL HOWE: I should like to raise a point on Clause 19, which deals with finance. I should like to know whether in the case of these special roads the Government will consider using the loan procedure in order to facilitate their financing. If these roads have all to be built out of revenue, a moment may arise when it suits the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go ahead, and then, when money is short, work may be stopped all of a sudden. Would it not be much simpler to deal with the matter in exactly the same way as county councils deal with their roads? When they have to build, they finance them out of loans—of course, after approval by the Treasury. It seems to me that if powers could be taken in the Bill to use the loan procedure, it might be a great heir, to the Government as well as to the road authorities. I would ask the noble Earl whether that question has actually been considered.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister to what the noble Earl has said. I am afraid I cannot answer without notice whether the matter has already been considered by the Department.
EARL HOWE: Perhaps the noble Earl can let me know on the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Certainly.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
Clause 21 [Interpretation]:
LORD ELTONhad given Notice of an Amendment to add to the clause:
"'reasonably convenient alternative route' means, in relation to Class VII specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, a route within one hundred yards of the route for which it is available or provided as an alternative;"
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to add one more to the list of interpretations in Clause 21. I am seeking to define a little further "reasonably convenient alternative route" by saying that it should mean "in relation to Class VII specified in the Second Schedule to this Act"—that is, in relation to pedestrians—"a route within 100 yards of the route for which it is available as an alternative."
The phrase "reasonably convenient alternative route" is somewhat of a key phrase in the Bill. On page 4, line 3, the Bill provides that
"No Order authorising the stopping up of a highway shall be made or confirmed by the Minister under this section unless the Minister is satisfied that a reasonably convenient alternative route is available …"
Naturally, the Minister likes to give himself a reasonably wide margin of error, and a rather vague phrase, such as "reasonably convenient alternative," provides that wide margin. For fast-moving traffic a wide margin of error is reasonable. A satisfactory alternative route for a car may be something like two miles distant from the point where the diversion is to be made, and it may be that even four miles would not be unreasonable. For a bicyclist, perhaps half a mile, or one might say a mile, would not be inconvenient. But when it comes to the human being, unprovided with any mechanical assistance, the question of the distance of this alternative becomes very important.
I am not thinking of hikers. Hikers, I understand, go out for air and exercise, and probably it does not matter much whether they get their air and exercise walking a little further to reach one of these alternative routes. We have to remember that these roads will be "slashed" across the countryside, pos-
158
sibly separating groups of houses, or even whole villages, which have shared their amenities perhaps for centuries—it may be even since the Domesday Book. The pedestrians concerned will include cripples, very old persons and very young persons, and for such people it is important that the alternative route should be close at hand. Otherwise we may be obliterating the whole social pattern of their lives. Ministers are in the habit of setting themselves targets expressed in terms of figures—sometimes they even reach the targets! Is it too much to ask that here in relation to Class VII—that is, to pedestrians—
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think the noble Lord means Class IX.
LORD ELTON: I staid subject to correction; I beg your Lordships' pardon. In relation to Class IX…that is, to pedestrians—would the noble Earl not be willing to insert some such figure as 100 yards? Of course, the figure of 100 yards has nothing sacred about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved…
Page 19, line 37, at end insert ("'reasonably convenient alternative route' means, in relation to Class IX specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, a route within one hundred yards of the route for which it is available or provided as an alternative;").—(Lord Elton.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If the noble Lord Chairman of Committees had not been so sharp, I was going to say how far astray the noble Lord was in his Amendment. I appreciate that this applies to Class IX—that is, to pedestrians. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree that it would be unwise to tie down the highway authority to construct an alternative route for these pedestrians within such a limited and precise distance as one hundred yards from the original path or crossing, which is what he proposes in his Amendment. That may be convenient in a large number of cases, but in other cases it may be essential and, indeed, inevitable, to make the alternative route a little further away—possibly 200 yards. I can assure the noble Lord—and I hope this will meet his point—that the intention is that the alternative crossing will be made as near as possible to the existing footpath or crossing which can no longer be

159
used owing to the construction of the motorway. That, I believe, is the interpretation which common sense would put on the words "reasonably convenient" as applied in the text of the Bill to an alternative route.
LORD ELTON: I should have preferred some figure to be inserted, even if it were 200 or 300 yards. However, in view of what the noble Earl has been good enough to say as to the Minister's intention of always making the alternative route as near as possible, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is the Amendment of substance which I mentioned when I asked your Lordships to approve the consequential Amendment just prior to the noble Lord, Lord Elton's Amendments. This makes it clear that the meaning in the definition of "the use of the road" includes the crossing of it. This is important, because it removes doubt about the significance of the word "use" in Clause 12 (2) (a), which now can be read without any suggestion of obscurity, in the sense that any class of traffic authorised to use a special road is also authorised to cross it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, at end insert ("'use' in relation to a road, includes crossing;").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Special provisions as to London]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 40, leave out ("sewerage") and insert ("sewage").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before we pass this Amendment, I would like to ask whether this is better English, or whether it is just to save two letters.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think it is to comply with the dictionary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROADBRIDGE: Before we leave this clause I wish briefly to make reference to the road bridges that cross the Thames in the administrative County of London. Four of those bridges were built under, and maintained by the Corporation of London, and they were so built and maintained at an enormous cost. Not a single penny for the construction or maintenance has fallen upon the ratepayers; it has all come from the Corporation's funds, through their appropriate Committee, the Bridge House Estates. These four bridges are the Tower Bridge, London Bridge, South-wark Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge. Your Lordships can no doubt gauge the enormous cost, and I do not intend to detain you by quoting any figures. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 8 of the Bill enables privately owned bridges on the route of a special road to be transferred by an order under Clause 3 to the special road authority. The four City bridges, being thus technically private bridges, might be so transferred, while the other bridges, being owned and maintained by the London County Council as the local authority, are protected from transfer. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that the Corporation of London are anxious lest the City bridges might be transferred to some other special authority—for example, to the London County Council. I would be grateful, having regard to the unique position of the City bridges, if the noble Earl could give sonic assurance that no order will be made or confirmed having the effect of transferring them to any other authority.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Lord opposite for raising this matter this afternoon, because it enables me, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister, to give in public an undertaking which I know he wishes to be given. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no intention whatever that any of the four bridges in the centre of London—of which, as he has said, the City Corporation act as trustees—will form part of a special road. There is no intention that an order will be made under this Bill, when it becomes a Statute, to transfer them from the Corporation to any other authority. That, I believe, is the undertaking which the

161
noble Lord would wish to have, and I am delighted to be in a position to give it.
LORD BROADBRIDGE: I thank the noble Earl for his assurance. I am sure it will be of great satisfaction to the City.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
6.11 p.m.
First Schedule:
Provisions as to schemes and orders
1. Where the Minister proposes to make a scheme under Section one of this Act, or where a scheme under that section is submitted to the Minister by a local highway authority, the Minister or that authority, as the case may he, shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in which the road to which the scheme relates is situated, and in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette, or in both those Gazettes, according as the scheme affects England or Scotland or both, a notice—

(a) stating the general effect of the proposed scheme;

(b) specifying a place in the said area where copies of a draft of the scheme, or of the scheme as submitted to the Minister, as the case may be, and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours during a period of three months from the date of the publication of the notice: and

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYhad given Notice of two Amendments, the second of which was to insert a new paragraph 2. The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the one which follows are inter-related, and for the convenience of the Committee I propose to discuss them together. The purpose of the Amendments is to instruct the special authority to give reasonably complete plans, so that those affected may see exactly what is in the plan and upon what grounds they may object. The wording of the paragraph 2 which I shall move to be inserted, more or less corresponds with the requirements of the promoters of a Private Bill affecting other interests in land. My intention is perfectly clear from the wording of the Amendment. It seems to me that the parties affected should have more knowledge than a notice stating the general effect of the proposed scheme. They should have as much detail as possible, including plans and elevations. I hope the noble Earl will be able to respond by accepting my Amendment as being not only proper but just to those interests which are likely to be affected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 17, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the effect of the noble Lord's Amendments would be to telescope at least two of the successive stages of the plan—the scheme stage and the order stage—in order that the scheme stage may contain particulars the provision of which, under the Bill, are envisaged in the order stage. I am advised that a detailed road plan of this kind would take a long time to prepare—perhaps as much as two or three years. The effect of that would be to make it impossible for planning authorities to include the route of these future motorways in their plans, and would to a large extent render town planning impracticable For instance, the development plans for the new towns could not be effectively drawn up without inclusion in them of the motorways which will connect those towns with other large centres of population. I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to protect the interests of those affected by the construction of these roads, but I think they are protected under the provisions of the Bill. They have exactly the same protection as any private interests have at the moment in relation to the building of roads by highway authorities. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the important advantages of the procedure suggested in the Bill, and the serious disadvantage of the procedure which he has suggested in his Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I wish this matter could be studied a little further, because I cannot quite understand how plans of this vague nature can be of assistance to town planning authorities. I know from my experience that we have found it impossible to put county roads on the planning map until they have reached a stage which I think is technically known as "the middle of the road" stage. What I have experienced is that road proposals move about in the most extra-ordinary way. They may move miles from one side to the other of the first suggested line. It may be that my noble friend's suggestion is impracticable in the way he has put it down; nevertheless I think the alternative proposed by the noble Earl would be equally impracticable because of its vagueness. I do

163
not know what my noble friend's intention is about this matter, but I feel it might be examined a little further.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I naturally do not want to be obstructive, but I am not assured by what the noble Earl has told me. In my present stage of enlightenment I cannot see how any people can say whether they object or not to a scheme unless they have some reasonable detail as to what the scheme is going to be. A general plan might be just a line on a map, and people who may ultimately be affected may not know from that plan that they will be so affected and may omit to lodge objections which they would otherwise have lodged. I can see the noble Earl's point about the difficulties of planning, but, even allowing for that, so far as his explanation has gone I cannot see that he met the objection which I was trying to raise.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I hope the noble Lord is aware of the fact that when the order stage is reached there will be ample opportunity for the interests affected to lodge their objection. What we want to avoid is the prevention of planning by authorities because they cannot see where their fast motor traffic is to go. What the planning authority wants to know is whether there is going to be a fast motor route from, say, a new town to London. That will be decided under the scheme stage, because that is the stage at which the line of the route is fixed from one place to another. We want to make this information available for planning authorities at the earliest convenient moment, and not to be held up by having to keep the line of these routes dark until the way in which the layout is going to be elaborated by the engineers has been decided.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am not certain that this goes quite far enough. Paragraph I of this Schedule says:
"… within the said period any person may by notice to the Minister object to the making or confirmation of the scheme."
Surely that is the stage at which objection should be made, but an objection cannot be made at that stage unless the scheme is rather fuller than the noble Earl has indicated in the two short speeches he has made on this Amendment. Perhaps the levels and gradients of the special roads need not be included
164
before objection can be lodged to a scheme; but when you are going to stop up existing roads and footpaths and when you are going to interfere with waterways and streams, that information ought surely to be in the original scheme, so that people may know exactly what the effect of the road is going to be. I would ask the noble Earl to have a look at this matter, and perhaps have a talk with some of us between now and the Report stage, to see whether fuller information cannot be given, even if not quite so full as is called for by this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly see whether more can be included in the scheme. I think that desire is common ground. I shall be most grateful for the assistance of the noble Lords, Lord Llewellin and Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, in the consideration of this matter with my advisers between now and the next stage.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I thank the noble Earl for that offer, and I hope we shall be able to discuss the matter. I should like to point out that if there is to be an inquiry held by the Minister, the person appointed to inquire will want knowledge of the scheme. He will not wish to rely on a map, and I cannot see how a proper inquiry can be held without more detail than is provided in the First Schedule. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Classes of traffic for purposes of special roads]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 15, leave out from ("Class I") to ("motor tractors") in line 16.—(The Earl of Lislowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the proposed Class II, at the beginning of paragraph (b) to insert:
"road making and repairing machinery and also".
The noble Viscount said: This is a small point. It is felt that while the Government are putting down in considerable

165
detail the classes of traffic which are or are not to be allowed on the special roads, it is not clear what provision is to be made for the movements of the road-making and repairing machinery that will be required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, at beginning insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not think the noble Viscount's Amendment is necessary, because his point is already covered in the Bill. Lorries or steel rollers or other vehicles required for the making or repair or maintenance of special roads will have to be included among the authorised traffic which can use the road, or, alternatively, which can be authorised to use it by regulations made under Clause 12 (2) (c). This provision of the Bill, I understand, is specifically directed to cover vehicles required for repairs and maintenance.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understood from the noble Earl earlier that any vehicle that was to receive this special provision had to be mentioned in a regulation. I understood the noble Earl to say that such a regulation would have to be approved by Parliament. I should have thought that if these particular vehicles came under the first portion of his remarks they would be perfectly all right; but surely it is not necessary to authorise a road-making and repairing vehicle to use a road every time it has to go on that road. I should have thought it was a normal procedure that such vehicles should be allowed to go over the road which they were going to repair—I do not say to use the road to get to other roads.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think we are speaking on different points. I was dealing with authorised vehicles which can use the road to travel either along it or across it. I think the noble Lord was dealing only with traffic going along the road, traffic used for repair and maintenance.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It is obvious that unless these vehicles are allowed to be used, there will not be any special roads. I am perfectly satisfied with the noble
166
Earl's explanation—though I do not profess to understand it—and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Orders under Trunk Roads Act, 1946, to be treated as schemes under this Act]:
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had given Notice of a number of Amendments to add to the list of orders, of which the first was to add:
"Stevenage By-pass, County of Hertford."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of these Amendments is to identify the new roads which have been either recently constructed or authorised, and which are to become special roads under Clause 1 of this Bill. The roads include the Severn Bridge, the Steven age By-pass, the Newport By-pass and others, and the descriptions I have suggested would, in my opinion, make the roads and the orders relating to them easier to recognise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 16, column 2, at beginning insert ("Stevenage By-pass, County of Hertford").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have been rather disobliging about the noble Earl's Amendments this afternoon, and it is quite a relief to me personally to find one at least which I am authorised to accept—at any rate in spirit. We agree entirely that it is desirable that these roads should have popular names which are easily recognised, and that therefore a technical and official description is not enough. We should like to include the names which the noble Earl has suggested, but we think they ought not to be in exactly the place in which he wants to put them. If he is willing to withdraw his Amendment, we will put down other Amendments to cover this point before the next stage.
EARL HOWE: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and beg lease to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
6.28 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, before moving the Third Reading of this Bill perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and myself had some slight controversy on the Second Reading of this Bill. I promised that I would read his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have done so, and I find that I was misled by his concluding remarks, because I took certain words out of their context. In doing so I did him an injustice in misinterpreting what he said concerning the development of the Commonwealth and Colonial Territories, and the possibilities of continuing guaranteed prices for agricultural products in this country.
I can see that there was very little difference between the noble Lord's statement and the statement made by Mr. Peake in another place. I am anxious to clear up this point and, in so doing, to inform the noble Lord how much I regret the misinterpretation of his remarks. I can see now that there is very little difference between what he said and what I believe in in relation both to the development of Colonial and Commonwealth Territories and to the protection of agriculture in this country. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Hall.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as it is so unlike the noble Viscount opposite in any way to misinterpret anything that is said, I thought that there had been a misunderstanding between us on Second Reading. If I may say so, it is typical of the noble Viscount that now, without any suggestion from me, he has made the statement that he has just made. I appreciate it very much and thank him for clearing up the matter so completely.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
6.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, at this late hour I will detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. I regret that I was unable to be present when the Second Reading of the Bill was under consideration. I recognise that it is now too late to alter the practically unanimous decision of both Houses of Parliament, approving the erection of a National Theatre on the south bank of the Thames, immediately adjoining County Hall, when it is just possible that the grandchildren of some of your Lordships may be alive to see this scheme bear fruition. I trust, however, that your Lordships will allow me, as one who has been associated with South Kensington for many years and has represented it in Parliament for twenty-seven years, to say how proud South Kensington is to possess a cultural group such as is essential to the plans for the establishment of a National Theatre. I regret, however, that pending the time when the ambitious proposals recently adumbrated in your Lordships' House by the Lord Chancellor, for the erection of a theatre, a concert hall, a restaurant, workshops and many other amenities, on the south bank of the Thames, materialise, the National Theatre Committee should have decided not to retain the site at South Kensington for the erection of the Theatre there, as originally intended.
Apart from the size of the site, nearly all the requirements for a National Theatre are to be found in the site which was purchased immediately opposite the South Kensington Museum. It is in the middle of a cultural centre, and the initial stages incidental to the locale of a National Theatre are already there. I trust that even now it may not be too late for consideration to be given to the retention of this site, together with the money subscribed for the erection of a theatre thereon, pending the availability

169
of the site, after its use for other purposes, on the south side of the river adjoining County Hall. As was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor a few weeks ago, three purposes have to be served by this site before even an attempt is made at the building of the National Theatre. Your Lordships can therefore imagine how long it will be before any National Theatre actually comes into operation immediately adjoining County Hall.
I am not going into the merits of the case, for it is too late to do that. But, after all, people will use the place mainly at night. When one thinks of that great block of the County Hall, in total darkness at night when all the clerks have left, it is not a very attractive prospect for people to cross the river at that point, in order to go to the National Theatre. The sum of £1,000,000 authorised by Parliament in the Bill should more than provide the necessary funds for the erection in clue course of a. National Theatre, while allowing at the same time for the retention, with the consent of the London County Council, of the present site for the erection of a smaller theatre which, as I have said, meets all the requirements of a National Theatre, because it has all the amenities of a cultural centre already formed. I trust that the trustees will also bear in mind that a considerable sum of money for the erection of a National Theatre was subscribed for the erection of such a Theatre on the site in South Kensington and not on the south side of the river. I hope that these considerations will carry weight with the trustees.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to say one or two words in reply to the noble Lord. First of all, this Bill does not provide for the amalgamation that has taken place and for the exchange of territory upon which the Theatre is to be built. All that the Bill does is to recognise the facts. The Government have been appealed to by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, for a grant. The Government have responded to that appeal, and are now asking Parliament to make such a grant possible. However, the grant is dependent on the Government being ultimately satisfied that an appropriate scheme has been established or proposed. That scheme
170
will come before the Government, and then the question of the grant will be determined. I can assure the noble Lord that, although he is very late with his remarks, they will be given consideration by the persons concerned.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his reply.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Ammon.)
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I wish to refer for a few moments to two points which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. The intention of Parliament clearly is to establish the junior colleges as soon as possible. That was the intention of the previous Government, and it should be our desire to make the period of postponement as short as possible. At the time of the Second Reading, I ventured to express doubt as to whether leaving the date indefinite was the best way to secure this object. I realise that I could have pressed the point by means of an Amendment, but I did not want to do so because I felt sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland had given careful thought to this Bill and that he had reasons to support his view that leaving the matter indefinite was better than fixing a target date. But I still have the feeling that it would be better to name a date one year or two years from now. Perhaps the noble Lord will say a word in reply on that subject, giving some reason, if possible, for the Secretary of State's decision.
The second point was that those in educational circles in Scotland are much concerned at the number of young people who, after leaving school, are not attending any kind of night school at all. The percentage is about 75, and a good deal of disquiet is felt on that subject. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I suggested that the Secretary of State might consider a measure of compulsion; pos-

171
sibly he might consider that there should be an evening class for young people on one night a week in the present premises. I realised that there were grave administrative and also psychological difficulties in pressing this suggestion of compulsion, nevertheless I felt that, as we are postponing for an indefinite period the starting of these junior colleges because there are no premises ready, we should consider using the existing premises which the education authorities have available to institute measures of evening school attendance in this way. If the noble Lord is able to touch upon those matters very briefly, I shall be much obliged.
6.41 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in the first place I hope the noble Lord will understand that my noble friend Lord Morrison is not at all discourteous; he rather expected that these points would have been raised on the Committee stage and not now. If I may deal first with the question of the date for commencing compulsory attendance at junior colleges, I would point out that it was suggested in the Second Reading debate here and also in another place that a date should be fixed now and put into the Bill, instead of doing what the Bill proposes—to place the duty upon the Secretary of State of fixing as early a day as he considers practicable. This suggestion has again been carefully considered, but the result has been to confirm the conclusion previously reached. There is a great deal of work to be done in building new primary and secondary schools and in improving and modernising existing schools, in order that the size of classes may be reduced and full advantage be taken of the great opportunities given by the raising of the school leaving age to 15. This work should take precedence over the building of junior colleges. It is quite impossible at present to estimate how long it will take to do what is required for primary and secondary education. Any date which might be put into the Bill now would be pure guesswork.
But, as Lord Morrison told your Lordships in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Government are anxious to start compulsory attendance at junior colleges as soon as practicable. Preliminary steps are already being taken to
172
plan the provision of these colleges. Everything possible is being done to promote the day-release on a voluntary basis of young workers, and much experience is being gained which will be of great value when compulsory attendance begins. That is the reply that my noble friend asked me to convey on the first point which the noble Lord raised. I do not know whether he wishes to comment on it now.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: No, I have no comment.
LORD AMMON: In regard to the second point my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has considered the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, during the Second Reading debate, that compulsory attendance at evening classes should be instituted as a temporary measure until compulsory attendance at junior colleges can be started, but for several reasons does not feel able to adopt the suggestion. The plan in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, is that hours of compulsory attendance at junior colleges are to be part of the working hours of the young people concerned and are not to involve any increase in the length of their working week. The new proposal would involve either an extension of the total working hours or the transfer of some of the working hours from the day to the evening. For example, a half-day's leave from the factory or the shop might have to be given to make up for an evening's work at night school.
My right honourable friend does not think that either arrangement would be popular with the young people or would produce successful results. Nor is it likely that the proposal would be welcomed by employers. Under the voluntary day-release arrangements which we are encouraging at present much of the time is given to technical education, and even the less progressive employers can see that this has industrial advantages. Facilities are not, however, available for giving technical education to all the young people who would be affected by the new proposals, and all that could normally be given would be makeshift general education.
The practical difficulties in the way would be a serious shortage of suitable staff and accommodation. We are already short of staff who can give the

173
kind of further education required to young people attending voluntarily and we have not suitable accommodation. It would do great harm to the cause of further education to compel these young people to go back into day schools in the evening and to treat them again as school children—and, incidentally, put them in charge of tired day-school teachers who have already done a full day's work. I hope that this reply will prove satisfactory, although perhaps not all that the noble Lord expected.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I thank the noble Lord for his statement.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

AMERICAN AID AND EUROPEAN PAYMENTS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
6.47 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE COURTS-MARTIAL COMMITTEE
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING had given Notice that he would call attention to the Report of the Army and Air Force Courts-Martial Committee (Cmd. 7608); and would move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I have already informed my noble friend Lord Hall, who I understand was going to reply, that as not only five o'clock but six o'clock has passed I thought it undesirable that I should begin this discussion to-day.
CERTIFICATE FROM EXAMINERS
The LORD SPEAKER on behalf of the Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

  SLOUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills—namely,

  L. Ellenborough,

  L. Hampton,

  L. Merthyr (Chairman),

  L. Ailwyn,

  L. Marley:

  Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

  NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
  Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee: Laid upon the Table, to be printed, and to be delivered out.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS, 1949.
  Regulations, dated 23rd February, 1949, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Representation of the People Act, 1948: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.