§ 2.42 p.m.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I beg! to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why it is necessary to acquire the 328 Beaconsfield Drive at Wilton Park instead of the London Road Drive which would avoid damaging the Home Farm by severance and save the nation £2,500 compensation for severance.]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONMy Lords, my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for War, decided that it was necessary to acquire the Beaconsfield Drive at Wilton Park mainly because the alternative drive would make the journey to the village three times as long for the Servicemen and their families who are stationed there. The longer route would also mean that women and children would have to walk some distance along a busy main road, and the point at which the London Road Drive meets the London Road is dangerous. Further, the extra cost of necessary road work on the London Road Drive would be considerably greater than the compensation for severance. The Beaconsfield Drive has been in use by the Army for about fifteen years and does not appear to have seriously affected the Home Farm.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but it is obvious that there are factors in this business with which he is not acquainted. I shall be very grateful if he will look at them personally. For example, is he aware that there is a perfectly good footpath from the hutments at Wilton Park to the London-Beaconsfield road which adds no distance whatever to the distance that has to be travelled to get to Beaconsfield village? Has he taken that into account? At a time when enormous pressure is being put on civilians to reduce costs, does he not think it is scandalous that a farm should be cut in half and £2,500 in compensation paid in order that these people may walk along a metalled drive instead of over a perfectly good footpath? I the work is being done for vehicles, it will make little or no difference in going to Beaconsfield or going to London: it is half a mile longer. Can the noble Lord tell the House why the Minister all along has refused an inquiry into this matter, which is of some importance? Does he not think it would be useful to have an inquiry so that all matters may be threshed out in public?
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, before the noble Lord answers, may I ask whether 329 he does not agree that the exit of the proposed Beaconsfield Road drive is much safer from the point of view of people emerging from Wilton Park than any other exit on the main road would be?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONMy Lords, in reply to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, may I say that I think he is referring to a right of way which goes along the Beaconsfield Road drive. If he wants that kept in operation as well as the new drive—that is, the London Road drive, then he is asking for two drives to be kept open. The Beaconsfield Road drive which has this right of way would be open to vehicles under the Government's proposed plan. The noble Lord is not quite right as to the cost of this proposal. In fact, the Government's proposed plan is cheaper than the noble Lord's alternative proposal. In either case the drive would need to be repaired and brought up to standard. The Government's proposed plan would cost £4,000 less than the noble Lord's plan, but against that must he put the £2,500 which must be paid in compensation to the owner of the farm. Therefore, the net difference is that the Government's proposed plan would be£1.500 cheaper than the noble Lord's plan.
As to an inquiry, the powers of the War Office of compulsory acquisition derive basically from the defence Acts, under which the service of a notice to treat is normal procedure if acquisition by agreement is not possible. This procedure does not provide for holding a public inquiry into the requirement to take over land, but, since 1947, when the White Paper entitled The Needs of the Armed Forces for Land for Training and other Pvrposes was published, special extra-statutory inquiries into the requirement of land for Service requirements came into force. These include a provision for a public local inquiry into cases where there are substantial objections on the ground of public interest, but—and I would ask the noble Lord to bear this specially in mind—such extra-statutory public beat inquiries are not empowered to consider objections from individuals on private grounds, and that applies in this case. In regard to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I said in my original answer that one of the advantages of the Beaconsfield Road drive is that it is much 330 safer than the other drive, which comes out on the main road.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that long answer. Surely he would agree with me that the severance of a valuable farm and payment of compensation up to £2,500 or £3,000 is a matter of public interest and not just a private interest and ought to come within the rule of matters of public interest allowed to he inquired into at art extra-statutory public inquiry?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONMy Lords, I am advised gnat this is a question of private interest and I am afraid that at the moment I cannot inform the noble Lord further on this particular point.